In the Matter of: Cremers (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J.A04042/13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE MATTER OF: ESTATE OF WILLIAM : L. CREMERS, JR., ESTATE OF WILLIAM L. : CREMERS, III AND ESTATE OF ESTATE : OF ESTELLE H. CREMERS, : : : APPEAL OF: MATTHEW R. CREMERS : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2075 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Order Entered May 15, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Orphans Court Division No(s).: 1592-0911, 1509-1719, 1510-1919 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., MUNDY, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: Filed: March 11, 2013 Pro se Appellant, Matthew R. Cremers, appeals from the order entered in the Orphan s Court Division of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas declaring the 2009 will of Estelle H. Cremers ( Mother ) valid and enforceable and denying the oral motion to amend the appeal petition. Appellant challenged the will based upon undue influence. We dismiss the appeal due to the failure of Appellant s brief to conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. The trial court adjudication thoroughly set forth the relevant facts so we do not restate them here. See Trial Ct. Adjudication, 5/16/12, at 1-12. On May 12, 2012, the court, following a two day hearing, adjudicated the * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J. A04042/13 will contest between Appellant and Appellee, Elisa M. Cremers, over Mother s 2009 will finding that credible evidence failed to prove that Mother had a weakened intellect, an element required to establish the undue influence averred as the sole basis of the will contest. Trial Ct. Op., 7/19/12, at 1. This timely appeal followed. Appellant filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. The trial court filed a responsive opinion. Appellant raises the following issues for our review: 1. Do the errors in the Findings of Fact cited in the Adjudication rise to a level sufficient to call into question the soundness of the decision? 2. Did the trial court conflate the requirements for establishing testamentary capacity with the requirements for establishing weakened intellect as an element of an undue influence case and thereby commit an error of law? 3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by ignoring, or giving no weight to, written evidence that [Mother] suffered from confusion, weakened intellect, and susceptibility to coercion and not giving weight to testimony which the Court called credible but which indicated insane delusions? 4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in limiting testimony regarding, and giving no weight to, documentary evidence establishing the withering effect on Mother s mind over time of the abusive behavior of Billy, and [Appellee s] boyfriend Ed Palamar, which rose to the level of imprisonment of mind and body? 5. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in not realizing that [Appellee] had a decades-long contempt for [Appellant] and his family which turned into a vendetta from 2008-2012, during which she has routinely lied and -2- J. A04042/13 slandered him regarding the nature and scope of a 2008 incident in which she invaded his home in a rage? 7.[1] Did the trial court err in finding that Mother did not show a history of persistent confusion regarding the nature and extent of her assets? 8. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in determining that the scrivener did not have multiple conflicts of interest resulting from a decades-long relationship with the testator s family, including but not limited to Billy, [Appellee, Appellant] and Hope, sufficient to vitiate his testimony in support of the will? 9. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion in deciding that the Motion to Amend Appeal Petition was waived because a statute of limitations had expired? 14. Did the trial court err in determining that [Appellant s] alleged behavior from 2007 through 2009, cited as a cause for his being excluded in the will[,] was based on facts in evidence? 15. Did the trial court err in finding that the distribution scheme in the 2009 will is natural, reasonable, and consistent with family history, with Mother s history of testamentary intent, and with [Appellant s] character and curriculum vitae? Appellant s Brief at 5-6. As a prefatory matter we note that, pro se status does not entitle a party to any particular advantage because of his or her lack of legal training. First Union Mortg. Corp. v. Frempong, 744 A.2d 327, 333 (Pa. Super. 1999). Moreover, The right of self-representation is not a license . . . not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law. 1 Appellant s statement of the questions involved does not contain any issues numbered 6, 10, 11, 12, or 13. Id. at 5. -3- J. A04042/13 Jones v. Rudenstein, 585 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. Super. 1991) (citation omitted). This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Laird v. Ely & Bernard, 528 A.2d 1379, 1381 (Pa. Super. 1987). Our Rules of Appellate Procedure set forth the required contents of appellate briefs. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111. Additionally, Rules 2114 through 2119 specify in greater detail the material to be included in briefs on appeal. Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). concisely the The statement of the questions involved must state issues to be resolved, expressed in the circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail. 2116(a). terms and Pa.R.A.P. The argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Citations of authorities must set forth the principle for which they are cited. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b). If reference is made to the pleadings, evidence, charge, opinion or order, or any other matter appearing in the record, the argument must set forth, in immediate connection therewith, or in a footnote thereto, a reference to the place in the record where the matter referred to appears[.] -4- Pa.R.A.P. J. A04042/13 2119(c). The brief must identify where in the record the arguments were preserved before the trial court. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302, 2119(e) This Court has stated: [A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id. Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing. In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa. Super. 2010) (some citations omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 2011). When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof. Frempong, 744 A.2d at 333-34 (citation omitted). Appellant s argument and conclusion are completely devoid of discussion of legal authority. Appellant does not explain why the trial court s ruling was contrary to law or otherwise improper. Accordingly, we are constrained to find Appellant s brief fails to conform to our Rules of Appellate Procedure, and we dismiss this appeal on that basis. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a), 2119(a)-(c); In re Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211-12. Appeal dismissed. -5-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.