In re Murray
Decision Date | 16 April 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 2111 EDA 2014,J-S03041-15,2111 EDA 2014 |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Parties | ESTATE OF ELAINE MURRAY APPEAL OF: BRUCE MURRAY |
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Bruce Murray appeals pro se from the final decree entered June 12, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Orphans' Court, dismissing his exceptions to the orphans' court's adjudication, dated September 13, 2013, and docketed September 16, 2013.1 In this appeal,Murray lists ten questions, which he distills to three arguments, namely,abuse of discretion by the orphans' court, mismanagement of the estate by Charlene Wilson-Doffoney (Doffoney), former Administratrix, and conflict of interest in the form of dual representation by counsel. For the following reasons, we affirm.
The orphans' court has aptly stated the history of this case, as follows:
Elaine Murray died on September 3, 2009, intestate and unmarried, leaving three children, Bruce Murray, Barbara Murray and Brenda Murray, to survive her as her heirs-at-law and next of kin under the intestate laws.
The Register of Wills granted Letters of Administration to Charlene Wilson-Doffoney, as Administratrix of the Estate of Elaine Murray, Deceased, on March 3, 2010.
Because she had failed to file an Account of her administration of the decedent's estate, as directed by Decree of Judge Matthew D. Carrafiello dated April 1, 2011, [the orphans' court] removed Charlene Wilson-Doffoney from her office of Administratrix of the Estate of Elaine Murray, Deceased, by [the court's] Decree dated July 25, 2011.
The Register of Wills granted Letters of Administration D.B.N. to Barbara Murray, daughter of the decedent, by Decree of the Register dated August 30, 2012.
On August 31, 2012, Barbara Murray, Administratrix D.B.N. as aforesaid, signed an Acknowledgment including statements that she had met with attorneys representing Charlene Wilson-Doffoney; that she had reviewed an Accounting for the period March 3, 2010 to July 25, 2011; and that she had received a check in the amount of $9,792.80, drawn to the order of the Estate of Elaine M. Murray, representing remaining estate funds.
On September 25, 2012, Bruce Murray, son of the decedent, filed a Petition For Citation For Writ Of Attachment because Charlene Wilson-Doffoney had failed to file an Account of her administration of the decedent's estate.
Orphans' Court Opinion, 9/13/2013, at 1-4.
The orphans' court, in its adjudication, found Doffoney to be a "credible and convincing witness," and found that she "made all of the disbursements and distributions for which she has taken credit in her Account." Id. at 4. The orphans' court determined disbursements, totaling $9,580.22, were "reasonable and necessary," and were "not excessive." Id. As such, the court dismissed all objections to the disbursements. However, the court found that Doffoney should be surcharged in the amount of $1,333.32 because she distributed cash totaling $7,400.00 to each of Bruce Murray and Barbara Murray, but distributed cash totaling $9,400.00 to Brenda Murray. The court distributed the surcharge amount, $666.66 to Bruce Murray and $666.66 to Barbara Murray as an individual, and distributed the remaining estate balance, $9,792.80 to Barbara Murray as Administratrix D.B.N. of the Estate of Elaine Murray, Deceased, for furtheradministration. Therefore, the first interim accounting of Doffoney, as modified by the ruling in the adjudication, was confirmed absolutely. See Adjudication, dated 9/13/2013, docketed 9/16/2013.
Thereafter, Murray filed exceptions to the adjudication.3 See Pa.R.O.C. 7.1 ( ). The orphan's court, by final decree entered June 12, 2014, dismissed the exceptions, affirmed its adjudication, and ordered that the final decree constitute a final order immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342. This pro se appeal by Murray followed.4, 5
Our standard of review is well settled:
In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 206-207 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 69 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013).
Murray first contends that the orphans' court committed an abuse of discretion in failing to address the following items: (1) Check #189, dated September 1, 2009, in the amount of $9,252.45 for pre-arrangement of funeral costs, (2) a wire transfer from decedent's bank's account, and (3) Check #991, in the amount of $3,500.00. Murray also contends the orphan's court abused its discretion in dismissing his objections to a $687.00 disbursement to Gallo Land Transfer on June 10, 2012, and a disbursement of $758.24 for real estate taxes for 1267 Ringold Street. In addition, Murrayclaims he is entitled to $2,000.00. We find these arguments warrant no relief.
With regard to the first three items, Check "189, the wire transfer, and Check #991, we note these specific issues were not raised by Bruce Murray in his objections to the first interim accounting of Doffoney, and therefore may be deemed waived. See Pa.R.O.C.R. 7.1(b) () .
Even if not waived, Murray has failed to provide any legal or factual support for his claims. We note that Doffoney was not appointed administratrix until March 3, 2010, well after the issuance of Check #189, dated September 1, 2009. Likewise, Doffoney's appointment came after the wire transfer.6
With regard to the check for $3,500.00, Murray only identifies the check as #991, dated "4/02,"7 and written on a Citizen's Bank commercial account.8 Murray does not provide the year of the check, the bank account number, or any other details to show how the check is relevant to the first interim accounting.9 Consequently, this claim is also waived for lack of specificity. See In re Estate of Johnson, 970 A.2d 433, 439 n.9 (Pa. Super. 2009) (, )appeal denied, 980 A.2d 608 (Pa. 2009).
With respect to the June 4, 2010, disbursement to Gallo Land Transfer for $687.00, and the June 14, 2010, disbursement for real estate taxes of $758.24 for 1267 Ringgold Street, Murray reiterates the arguments he made to the orphans' court in his objections to the adjudication. Specifically, Murray argues that "no transfer of deeds have been filed," and that theproperty at 1267 Ringgold was held by "joint ownership." Murray's Brief at 2-3. However, the orphans' court addressed these amounts in...
To continue reading
Request your trial