: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

J-A09016-23  

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 
 

IN RE: THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. 
MUMMA 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

PPEAL OF: ROBERT M. MUMMA, II 

 No. 74 MDA 2022 

Appeal from the Order Entered December 6, 2021 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at 
No(s):  21-86-0398 

IN RE:  THE ESTATE OF ROBERT 
MUMMA 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

PPEAL OF: ROBERT M. MUMMA, II 

Appeal from the Order Entered December 6, 2021 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at 
No(s):  21-86-0398 

 No. 75 MDA 2022 

EFORE:  BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J. 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.:           FILED: MARCH 22, 2023 

Appellant,  Robert  M.  Mumma,  II,  appeals  two  orders  entered  in  the 

Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County 

on December 6, 2021.  We are constrained to quash this appeal as untimely. 

 

Because our disposition turns on a limited set of facts, we recite only a 

distilled history of this long-running dispute.  Robert M. Mumma (Mumma, Sr.) 

died testate on April 12, 1986.  Two testamentary trusts, a marital trust and 

    A

    A

 

 

 

 

  B

  

J-A09016-23 

a residual trust, were created under the terms of his will.  Letters testamentary 

on Mumma, Sr.’s estate were granted to Barbara McK. Mumma (the widow of 

Mumma,  Sr.  and  hereinafter  “B.M.  Mumma”)  and  Lisa  M.  Morgan  (one  of 

Mumma,  Sr.’s  daughters  and  hereinafter  “Ms.  Morgan”),  to  serve  as 

co-executrixes and co-trustees. 

 

B.M. Mumma died in July 2010 and Ms. Morgan became the sole trustee 

of the marital and residual trusts.  On June 7, 2019, Ms. Morgan filed a petition 

seeking  the  Orphans’  Court’s  approval  to  combine  the  marital  and  residual 

trusts.    Over  Appellant’s  objections,  the  Orphans’  Court  approved  Ms. 

Morgan’s proposal to combine the trusts. 

 

On July 27, 2021, Ms. Morgan filed the two petitions giving rise to the 

present  appeals.    Without  going  into  unnecessary  detail,  both  petitions 

requested court approval  to withhold  distributions  from the  combined trust.  

On August 2, 2021, the Orphans’ Court issued rules to show cause for both 

petitions filed by Ms. Morgan and Appellant responded in opposition to both 

petitions.    Later,  the  Orphans’  Court  scheduled  hearings  on  Ms.  Morgan’s 

petitions for December 2, 2021. 

 

Appellant failed to appear at the December 2nd hearings.  Nevertheless, 

the proceedings went forward, and the Orphans’ Court granted both petitions.  

The  orders  granting  Ms.  Morgan’s  petitions  were  recorded  in  the  docket  on 

December  6,  2021  and  notice  of  the  orders  was  provided  that  same  day 

- 2 - 

pursuant  to  Orphans’  Court  Rule  4.6.    Appellant  filed  two  notices  of  appeal 

challenging the Orphans’ Court’s orders on January 6, 2022.1 

 

The timeliness of an appeal concerns our appellate jurisdiction, and we 

may  raise  the  issue  sua  sponte.    See  Commonwealth  v.  Andre,  17  A.3d 

951, 957–958 (Pa. Super. 2011).  To lodge a timely appeal from a final order, 

“the notice . . . shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from 

which the appeal is taken.”  Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).  “[Under our appellate rules, 

the date of entry of an order] shall be the day the clerk of the court [] mails 

or delivers copies of the order to the parties[.]”  Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1).  

 

Here, the Orphans’  Court entered the orders challenged on appeal on 

December 6, 2021, when notice of the December 2, 2021 orders was issued 

to  the  parties  pursuant  to  Orphans’  Court  Rule  4.6.    As  such,  the  30-day 

appeal period began to run on December 6, 2021, and Appellant needed to 

file his notices of appeal no later than January 5, 2022.  Appellant concedes 

that he filed his notices of appeal on January 6, 2022, one day after the appeal 

period lapsed.2  See Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2.  Because Appellant failed to 

file  timely  notices  of  appeal,  we  lack  jurisdiction  to  address  the  merits  of 

Appellant’s claims.  Accordingly, we quash.  

___________________________________________ 

1 Both Appellant and the Orphans’ Court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

  Appellant  asks  this  Court  to  excuse  his  untimely  filings,  claiming  that  he 
relied  upon  erroneous  advice  from  an  individual  in  the  clerk’s  office.    See 
Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2-3.  We decline this invitation. 

- 3 - 

 

 

  _

  2

J-A09016-23 

- 4 - 

J-A09016-23 

Appeal quashed. 

udgment Entered. 

oseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 
Prothonotary 

ate: 3/22/2023 

    J

    J

  D