Calantzis v. Collins

• Decision Date: 09 October 1970
• Parties: Panos CALANTZIS a/k/a Peter X. Calantzis, Foli X. Calantzis, George X. Calantzis, Theophilis X. Calantzis, by Panos Calantzis, their Attorney-in-Fact v. Catherine COLLINS, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 655

269 A.2d 655

440 Pa. 354

Panos CALANTZIS a/k/a Peter X. Calantzis, Foli X. Calantzis,

George X. Calantzis, Theophilis X. Calantzis, by

Panos Calantzis, their Attorney-in-Fact v. Catherine COLLINS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 9, 1970.

James W. Daub, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Tasso E. Camarinos, Pittsburgh, for appellees.

Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

O'BRIEN, Justice.

Appellant sought, in the court below, the discharge of a guardian ad litem appointed for her. The chancellor refused to discharge the guardian and upon the dismissal of exceptions by the court en banc and the entry of a final degree, an appeal to this court was filed.

The factual and procedural history of this case is concisely summarized in the opinion of the trial court as follows:

'Catherine Collins is a seventy-three year old widow, having emigrated from Greece to Canada in 1909 at the age of fourteen. Her education consists of attendance at school in Greece for four years. In 1914 she married Peter Calantzis, also known as Peter Collins. After marriage in Canada they moved to Pittsburgh in 1917 and later to Franklin, Pennsylvania. Peter Collins died in 1951, a resident of Venango County, Penna. His will was admitted to probate in the Office of the Register of Wills of Venango County, Pennsylvania, at No. 64 March Term, 1956. By his will, Mr. Collins devised his estate to his four nephews in Greece, the plaintiffs in this action. Defendant elected to take against the will of her deceased husband.

'Among the assets in the decedent's estate is a valuable tenement building at the northeast corner of Forbes and Craig Streets, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This is known as the Collins Building. The address is No. 4175 Craig and Nos. 4601--4603 Forbes Avenue.

'As a result of her election, Catherine Collins became seized of an undivided one-half interest in this property. The other one-half interest is vested in the plaintiffs herein.

'Plaintiffs commenced this action in partition on November 2, 1961. On February 3, 1963, an agreement was entered into among the parties hereto. Based on this agreement a decree of court was entered February 7, 1963. Presumably this concluded the matter.

'The Agreement and Decree called for a division of the net rentals among the parties in accordance with the respective interests. Oakland Realty Company, a firm doing business in the vicinity of the subject property, was designated as rental agent for the premises. This was done with the consent of all parties.

'Instead of allowing the Realty Company to manage the property, Catherine Collins herself assumed this function. She collected rents, signed leases and ordered repairs.

'At the age of 73, having had little formal education, all of which was gained in Greece, Mrs. Collins is not equipped to carry on any type of commercial activity in a modern American city. The facts bear out this conclusion. Mrs. Collins kept no account of her stewardship. She had no receipts for repair bills paid, no account of rents collected, taxes paid or repairs ordered.

'When the Greek co-owners learned of this state of affairs, they sent a representative to Pittsburgh to see what could be done to remedy the situation. By Court order filed May 18, 1967, Mrs. Collins was cited to file an account. A hearing on this matter was held on May 31, 1967. At this, Mrs. Collins was totally uncooperative. She failed to realize her obligations to keep records and to account to her co-owners. This Court, by Order of June 5, 1967, again designated Oakland Realty Company as manager of the property and directed Mrs. Collins to cease interfering with this arrangement. At this hearing the representative of the plaintiffs' interest was most cooperative. He disclaimed any intention in suing defendant for past defalcations. He stated that he and his co-owners in Europe are more interested in Mrs. Collins' personal well-being than in their own financial interest. The latter is relatively small per person when compared with hers.

'Mrs. Collins refused to comply with the Court Order. Again she negotiated leases, collected rents and ordered repairs. She paid taxes, on at least one occasion paying taxes that had been paid by the agent. She was cited for contempt of Court. Following a hearing on July 27, 1967, this Court appointed Robert Grigsby, Esquire, as Guardian ad litem, pursuant to the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 2051 et seq., particularly Rule 2056 (12 P.S. Appendix).'

Initially, appellant complains that the agreement of February, 1963, entered as an order of court, terminated the partition proceedings and that the court, therefore, had no further jurisdiction over the parties and the cause of action. We do not agree with this contention. The matter is in its present posture because appellees sought the assistance of the court in the enforcement of the February, 1963, decree, which decree they averred was being violated by appellant. We recently addressed ourselves to a similar contention in Advanced Management Research v. Emanuel, Pa., 266 A.2d 673 (1970), and rejected it. The discontinuance of the action, based on a decree requiring a performance of a series of acts does not oust the court of its jurisdiction to see to the enforcement of that decree. For the same reason, appellant's argument that there was no pending litigation and that the court, therefore, had no power to appoint a guardian ad litem, is without merit.

Appellant further complains that the trial court erred in failing to file an adjudication, as required by the equity rules. We agree with the court below that no such procedure was required. The appointment of a guardian ad litem resulted, not from a complaint in equity, answer and hearing, but rather from a petition seeking the enforcement of a decree previously entered. In such circumstances, we do not believe that the rules require an adjudication as contemplated by the equity rules. Under the posture of this record, Community Sports, Inc. v. Oakland Oaks, 429 Pa. 412, 240 A.2d 491 (1968), is not applicable.

Appellant next argues that the decree was entered prematurely, inasmuch as it was filed before appellees filed their brief. We fail to...