Summary
The Pennsylvania Superior Court considers an appeal from an order denying Jimmy and Karen Dorsey’s petition for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs from Mary D. Avery’s guardianship estate. The court holds that the order is immediately appealable under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 342(a)(5) and (6). Because the record raises unresolved questions concerning Pennsylvania, New York, and South Carolina jurisdiction over Avery’s capacity status and guardianship, the court remands for an evidentiary hearing and factual findings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an orphans' court order denying a petition for reimbursement of legal fees from a ward's estate is immediately appealable as of right.
- Whether the orphans' court lacked jurisdiction over Avery's capacity status and estate, rendering its orders void ab initio.
- Whether the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act governs in rem jurisdiction in adult guardianship proceedings and permits the appellate court to raise the issue sua sponte.
- Whether Pennsylvania was Avery's home state under the UAGPPJA when the Dorseys filed their guardianship petition, including whether her absence in New York was temporary.
Holdings
- An orphans' court order denying a petition by alleged creditors for attorneys' fees and costs from a guardianship estate is immediately appealable as of right under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 342(a)(5), because it determines creditor status, and under Rule 342(a)(6), because it determines an interest in personal property.
- A court's lack of in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction over the res is non-waivable and may be raised sua sponte on appeal; a judgment entered without in rem jurisdiction is void ab initio.
- The UAGPPJA governs in rem jurisdiction over an adult's capacity status and guardianship estate, rather than subject-matter or personal jurisdiction.
- The record was insufficient to determine whether Pennsylvania was Avery's home state under the UAGPPJA because she left Pennsylvania before completing six consecutive months there, and the orphans' court had not determined whether her move to New York was intended as a temporary absence or a permanent change of domicile.
Key quotations
“Because a judgment without jurisdiction is no judgment at all (see Whitmer, supra), a court’s lack of in rem jurisdiction over the res, like lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, is a non-waivable issue that this Court may raise sua sponte.” (at 39)
“We hold that, because the UAGPPJA governs the in rem jurisdiction of courts, this Court may, sua sponte, raise the issue of whether the Orphans’ Court of Berks County had jurisdiction over Ms. Avery’s capacity status.” (at 56)
“Accordingly, we must remand this case to the orphans’ court to decide, as sole finder of fact, whether Ms. Avery intended her trip to New York to be a “temporary absence” or to establish a new domicile.” (at 64)
Factual background
Mary Avery lived in South Carolina for approximately nineteen years before her son and daughter-in-law brought her to Pennsylvania in May 2021. She remained in Pennsylvania for approximately 178 days, including time in the Dorseys' home and at an assisted-living facility, before leaving with her daughter for New York on November 20, 2021. The Dorseys filed a petition for emergency co-guardianship in Berks County on December 10, 2021, while Avery was in New York. The orphans' court later declared Avery incapacitated and appointed the Dorseys as permanent co-guardians, then denied their petition for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs.
Procedural history
The Berks County Orphans' Court appointed the Dorseys as co-guardians after declaring Avery incapacitated, later denied their petition for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs, and the Dorseys appealed. The Superior Court initially issued a rule to show cause concerning interlocutory appealability, discharged the rule, and deferred the issue. On its own initiative, the Court identified a potential interstate jurisdictional defect and ordered supplemental briefing before remanding for factual findings.
Remand instructions
The Berks County Orphans' Court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and determine whether Avery intended her departure to New York to be a temporary absence or to establish a new domicile. If the absence was temporary, the court must return the record so the Superior Court can address the merits. If the absence was permanent, the court must make factual findings concerning other possible UAGPPJA jurisdictional bases, including significant-connection-state and appropriate-forum factors, and return the record for the Superior Court's legal determination. The Superior Court retained jurisdiction.