NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : :

Transcription

1 J-S NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P ROOSEVELT-BENTMAN TRUST FOR AMERICAN VOTERS INTER VIVOS TRUST APPEAL OF: HONORABLE PETER J. WIRS, TRUSTEE OF THE INTER VIVOS TRUST : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : No. 796 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order entered February 4, 2015 n the Court of Common Pleas of Phladelpha County, Orphans' Court Dvson, No(s): Control No No. 608 IV of 2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 29, 2016 Peter J. Wrs ( Wrs ), as Trustee of the Roosevelt-Bentman Trust for Amercan Voters Inter Vvos Trust ( the Trust ), appeals from the Order dsmssng, wth prejudce, the Petton to Confrm Arbtraton Award ( the Petton to Confrm ) fled by the 59 th Republcan Ward Executve Commttee ( the 59 th Ward ). 1 We affrm. The tral court concsely summarzed the relevant factual and procedural hstory n ts Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opnon, and we adopt t for the 1 Wrs s an Offcer of the 59 th Ward, whch s not a party to the nstant appeal.

2 J-S purpose of ths appeal. See Tral Court Opnon, 5/29/15, at , 3 Followng the flng of the Notce of Appeal, the tral court dd not order Wrs to fle a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concse statement of errors complaned of on appeal. Wrs dd not fle a concse statement. In ts Opnon, the tral court explaned that Wrs was not ordered to submt a Statement of Errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) based on hs pror flngs[,] whch were confusng, prolx and non-responsve ether to the [tral c]ourt s nqures or the ssues. Id. at 5. On appeal, Wrs presents the followng ssue for our revew: Dd the court below err by falng to apply the mandatory provson of the 2 As an addendum, we observe that the amount of the arbtraton award entered aganst the Republcan Natonal Commttee ( RNC ) was approxmately $20 mllon dollars. Accordng to Wrs, [t]he RNC, on February 26, 2009, pledged $20 mllon to the Trust, to supersede fundrasng efforts proposed by Dr. John Templeton, Jr. The RNC then reneged on ts $20 mllon pledge. Reply Bref for Appellant at 3 (footnotes omtted). 3 Wrs advanced scant facts n hs bref (merely one sentence plus a footnote), and provded no ctaton to the record concernng the facts he dd dscuss. See Pa.R.A.P (governng the requrements for the statement of the case). Notably, Wrs faled to dentfy the arbtrator(s) who presded over the alleged arbtraton hearng, but acknowledged that he was an arbtrator. See, e.g., Reply Bref for Appellant at 5 (statng that there were three co-trustees servng as arbtrators ). In ts Opnon, the tral court observed that whle Wrs faled to specfcally dentfy the arbtrator, snce [] Wrs s the only Trustee ever mentoned or dentfed, ths leads to the nescapable concluson that [] Wrs was n fact the arbtrator for the arbtraton hearng. Tral Court Opnon, 5/29/15, at 7. We dscern nothng n the record to contradct the tral court s fndng n ths regard, and lke the tral court, are troubled by Wrs s lack of transparency n dsclosng the essental facts. See d. at 11 (dsapprovng of [t]he unwllngness of [Wrs] to permt the trbunal s actons to be vewed wth transparency )

3 J-S Pennsylvana Unform Arbtraton Act [], 42 Pa.C.S.A. 7342(b), for confrmaton of an arbtraton award and entry of judgment when each statutory qualfcaton for the confrmaton s uncontroverted[?] Bref for Appellant at 1. 4 As Wrs s challenge to the tral court s falure to properly apply secton 7342(b) turns on a queston of law, our scope of revew s plenary, and the standard of revew s de novo. Castellan v. Scranton Tmes, L.P., 124 A.3d 1229, 1240 (Pa. 2015). An arbtraton award n a common law arbtraton s bndng, and may only be vacated or modfed where t s clearly shown that a party was dened a hearng or that fraud, msconduct, corrupton or other rregularty caused the rendton of an unjust, nequtable or unconsconable award. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 7341; see also Andrew v. CUNA Brokerage Servs., 976 A.2d 496, 500 (Pa. Super. 2009). An rregularty that requres reversal of a common-law arbtraton award refers to the process employed n reachng the results of the arbtraton, not to the result tself. Chervenak, Keane & Co., Inc. v. Hotel Rttenhouse Assocs, Inc., 477 A.2d 482, 485 (Pa. Super. 1984). The party challengng a common law arbtraton award bears 4 There are two arbtraton acts n Pennsylvana, the Unform Arbtraton Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A et seq., governng statutory arbtraton, and 42 Pa.C.S.A et seq., governng common law arbtraton. Moscatello v. Hllard, 939 A.2d 325, 327 (Pa. 2007). The nstant case mplcates the provsons regardng common law arbtraton. The provson Wrs reles upon, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 7342(b), sets forth a 30-day tme lmt for challengng common law arbtraton awards

4 J-S the burden to establsh both the underlyng rregularty and the resultng nequty by clear, precse, and ndubtable evdence. Andrew, 976 A.2d at 500 (ctaton omtted). Arbtraton, whle not surrounded by the techncal procedural safeguards ncdent to ltgaton, s not a wholly nformal process and requres for ts valdty the observance of certan mnmum standards ndspensable to the securng of a far and mpartal dsposton of the merts of a controversy. These mnmum standards requre that both partes are provded wth notce, all the arbtrators must st at the hearng, each sde s enttled to be heard and to be present when the other party s evdence s beng gven and, unless the submsson allows a decson by a majorty of the arbtrators, all must jon n the award. Id. at 501 (nternal ctaton and quotaton marks omtted) (ctng Allstate Ins. Co. v. Foravant, 299 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 1973) (statng that once a dspute has been submtted to arbtraton, the partes are enttled to a hearng wth the necessary essentals of due process,.e., notce and opportunty to be heard and to defend n an orderly proceedng adapted to the nature of the case before a trbunal havng jursdcton of the cause. )). Intally, we observe that n Wrs s Argument secton, he presents numerous dstnct allegatons of error, many of whch are not farly suggested by the sole ssue set forth n hs Statement of Questons Presented, and were not rased before the tral court. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (statng that [n]o queston wll be consdered unless t s stated n the statement of questons nvolved or s farly suggested thereby. ); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (statng that a clam cannot be rased for the frst tme on appeal)

5 J-S By requrng that an ssue be consdered waved f rased for the frst tme on appeal, our [appellate C]ourts ensure that the tral court that ntally hears a dspute has had an opportunty to consder the ssue. Ths jursprudental mandate s also grounded upon the prncple that a tral court must be gven the opportunty to correct ts errors as early as possble. In re F.C. III, 2 A.3d 1201, 1212 (Pa. 2010) (ctatons and ellpses omtted). To the extent that Wrs s several clams are not farly suggested by the ssue rased n hs Rule 2116(a) statement, and/or were not preserved n the tral court, these clams are waved. See In re F.C. III, 2 A.3d at 1212 (fndng waver under Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) where the appellant faled to rase certan ssues before the tral court); Krebs v. Unted Ref. Co., 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006) (fndng waver under Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a), and observng that ths Court wll not ordnarly consder any ssue that s not set forth n or suggested by the statement of questons nvolved). 5 Wrs argues that the tral court erred by dsmssng the Petton to Confrm, as the court was requred by 42 Pa.C.S.A. 7342(b) to confrm the arbtraton award and enter judgment aganst RNC. See Bref for Appellant at 4-6. Secton 7342(b) provdes, n relevant part, that [o]n applcaton of 5 In so holdng, we observe that the tral court s decson not to order Wrs to fle a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concse statement does not thereby allow hm to present on appeal clams that he nether preserved below nor set forth n hs statement of questons presented. Indeed, the tral court determned that t would be unwse to order Wrs to fle a concse statement, gven hs confusng [and] prolx pror flngs. To the extent that Wrs challenges the tral court s framng the ssues on appeal n ts Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opnon, Bref for Appellant at 15, we dscern no error or abuse of dscreton, as the court merely framed the relevant ssues presented by Wrs s verbose flngs

6 J-S a party made more than 30 days after an award s made by an arbtrator under secton (relatng to common law arbtraton), the court shall enter an order confrmng the award and shall enter a judgment or decree n conformty wth the order. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 7342(b) (emphass added); see also Bref for Appellant at 4-6. Wrs contends that because RNC dd not contest the Petton to Confrm, the tral court was oblgated by secton 7342(b) to confrm the arbtraton award and enter judgment aganst RNC. Bref for Appellant at 5, 6 (relyng on Berker v. Permagran Prods., 500 A.2d 178, 179 (Pa. Super. 1985) (observng that use of the word shall n secton 7342(b) must be nterpreted as mandatory)); see also Bref for Appellant at 7 (assertng that [Wrs s] legal arguments should end on the fact that there was no answer [by RNC] to the Petton to Confrm. ). Addtonally, Wrs argues that the tral court erred by questonng the arbtrators jursdcton[,] snce [a]ny challenge to the arbtrators jursdcton was requred to be rased before the arbtrators[;] f not tmely rased before the arbtrators, any challenge on jursdctonal grounds s 6 Secton 7341 s partcularly relevant to ths appeal, and provdes as follows: The award of an arbtrator n a nonjudcal arbtraton whch s not subject to Subchapter A (relatng to statutory arbtraton) or a smlar statute regulatng nonjudcal arbtraton proceedngs s bndng and may not be vacated or modfed unless t s clearly shown that a party was dened a hearng or that fraud, msconduct, corrupton or other rregularty caused the rendton of an unjust, nequtable or unconsconable award. 42 Pa.C.S.A

7 J-S rrevocably waved. Bref for Appellant at 10 (captalzaton omtted). Moreover, Wrs argues that [t]he [tral court] erred by falng to recognze that the [a]rbtrators dd not volate the RNC s rght to due process by proceedng n absenta, because the RNC dd not deny that t had due notce. Id. at 12; see also Reply Bref for Appellant at 3 (averrng that RNC receved notce of [the arbtraton a]ward on June 10, 2009[,] by emal. ). In ts Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opnon, the tral court addressed Wrs s clams, set forth the applcable law, and determned that Wrs s not enttled to relef because (1) the arbtraton forum faled to establsh n personam jursdcton over RNC; and (2) the arbtraton award was unenforceable under 42 Pa.C.S.A. 7341, n that RNC was not gven proper notce of the alleged arbtraton hearng, whch resulted n the entry of an award that was unjust, nequtable and unconsconable. See Tral Court Opnon, 5/29/15, at 7-9 (begnnng frst full paragraph on p. 7); see also d. at 11 (statng that [t]he unwllngness of [Wrs] to permt the trbunal s actons to be vewed wth transparency, and the falure to prove the necessary elements of due process, left the [t]ral [c]ourt wth no recourse but to have dsmssed ths matter. ). The tral court s sound analyss s supported by the law and the record, and we affrm on ths bass wth regard to Wrs s clams on appeal, see d. at 7-9, albet wth the followng addendum

8 J-S There s no mert to Wrs s contenton that the tral court was statutorly bound to confrm the arbtraton award under 42 Pa.C.S.A. 7342(b). As mentoned above, secton 7342(b) specfcally references an award by an arbtrator under secton As the tral court properly determned, the arbtraton award entered n ths case was unenforceable under secton 7341 because the apparent dentty of forum, movng party, and arbtrator render[ed] the award unjust, nequtable, and unconsconable. Tral Court Opnon, 5/29/15, at 7 (referencng 42 Pa.C.S.A. 7341); see also Andrew, 976 A.2d at 500. For ths reason, Wrs s relance upon Berker, supra, s unavalng. Berker merely stands for the proposton that where a vald and enforceable arbtraton award s entered, and the prevalng party seeks to confrm the award after more than thrty days had elapsed from the date of the award, secton 7342(b) requres the tral court to confrm the award. See Berker, 500 A.2d at 179. In the nstant case, the award entered after the arbtraton hearng (presumng such hearng actually occurred) was never enforceable because of lack of jursdcton and a volaton of secton Accordngly, we conclude that the tral court correctly dsmssed the Petton to Confrm the arbtraton award. Order affrmed

9 J-S Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 2/29/

10 .... '",,, ~ ,. Crculated 01/27/ :10 AM Roosevelt Bentman Trust For Tne Amercan Voter. In Ill I I Ill IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION O.C. No. 608 IV of 2014 Control No ROOSEVELT-BENTMAN TRUST FOR AMERICAN VOTERS, Inter Vvos Trust OPINION Appellant, Peter Wrs, Trustee of the Roosevelt-Bentman Trust for Amercan Voters, (herenafter referred to as "Mr. Wrs"), appeals from the Tral Court's Decree dated February 2, 2015, dsmssng the 591h Republcan Ward Executve Commttee's Petton to Confrm Arbtraton Award. Appellees are the Republcan Natonal Commttee and the Chartable Trust and Organzaton Secton of the Pennsylvana Offce of the Attorney General.1 Facts and Procedural Hstory The 59th Republcan Ward Executve Commttee, (herenafter referred to as "Pettoner"), establshed the Roosevelt-Bentman Trust for Amercan Voters, 1The Republcan Natonal Commttee was the Respondent lsted n the Petton to Confrm Arbtraton Award. ; However, the Superor Court docket lsts the Chartable Trust and Organzaton Secton of the Pennsylvana Offce of the Attorney General as Appellee and the Republcan Natonal Commttee as a Partcpant. The Attorney General's Offce dd not actvely partcpate n the Tral Court proceedngs.

11 (herenafter referred to as the "Trust"), on October 4, The Republcan Natonal Commttee s alleged to be a qualfed benefcary of the Trust,' however' t denes any nvolvement wth, or any nterest n the Trust.4 On May 2, 2014, Pettoner 59th Republcan Ward Executve Commttee fled a Petton to Confrm Arbtraton Award, allegng that an arbtraton hearng had been held, whch resulted n an award entered n ts favor and aganst the Republcb Natonal Commttee. The award purportedly became effectve June 12, 2009,5 and Pettoner sought confrmaton of the award and entry of judgment.6 On the same date as Pettoner's Petton to confrm the arbtraton award, Mr. Wrs fled a Petton for Declaratory Judgment on behalf of the Trust, (herenafter referred to as "Mr. Wrs' Petton"). The Tral Court dsmssed Mr. Wrs' Petton on May 21, 2014 due to numerous rregulartes and defcences, ncludng: falure to request specfc relef, falure to dentfy ssues, respondents, and relevant Trust provsons, volaton of the Rules of Cvl Procedure as the petton was not!n paragraph form and was unnecessarly anecdotal, prolx, and devod of necessary specfc factual allegatons whch would justfy relef, and falure to nclude a copy ;, r, of the arbtraton award whch he sought to enforce. 7 2 Petton to Confrm Arbtraton A ward, p Petton to Confrm Arbtraton Award, p On The Record Conference, N.T. 10/02/14, p Petton to Confrm Arbtraton A ward, p, Petton to Confrm Arbtraton Award, p, 4. 7 Decree Dated 05/2 J /14, Control # I. 2

12 Mr. Wrs fled Exceptons, but then wthdrew hs Petton on July 3, The Tral Court dsmssed the Exceptons on July 9, 2014 before recevng the praecpe for wthdrawal.' No appeal was taken by any of the partes to the Tral Court's rulng on Exceptons. On October 2, 2014, the Tral Court held an On the Record Conference on the remanng outstandng Petton of the 59th Republcan Ward Executve Commttee to Confrm Arbtraton Award. Present at the hearng were Jonathan Goldsten, Esq. and Brtan Henry, Esq. for the Republcan Natonal Commttee, who appeared specfcally to challenge proprety of servce. Also present were Lawrence Otter, Esq. for the Pettoner and Mr. Wrs as Trustee and Settlor.9 At the the conference, the Tral Court ordered both partes to submt, wthn 60 Memorandum of Law, dscretely and concsely addressng two ssues: 1) whether the Orphans' Court s the proper venue to confrm the arbtraton award and entera t judgment, and 2) whether the arbtraton forum had obtaned jursdcton over the Republcan Natonal Commttee.'? 8 Decree Dated 07/9/14, Control # N.T. 10/2/14, p. 6. Mr. Wrs dentfed hmself on the record as: "I am Peter J. Wrs. I am the Trustee ofthe Roosevelt Bentman Trust. And for the record, I am an offcer of the Settlor, so - but I am here today as the Trustee and the Settlor, as well as the Republcan Natonal Commttee, as well as all poltcal party commttees are (my benefcary {sc},... " l to Decree Dated 10/06/14, Control #

13 Pursuant to the Tral Court's Decree, the Republcan Natonal Commtt,ee fled ts Memorandum on December 4, 2014, and Pettoner 59th Republcan Ward Executve Commttee's was receved on December 9, Thereafter, on December 11, 2014, the Republcan Natonal Commttee fl~d t a Moton to Strke Pettoner's Untmely Memorandum of Law, 11 The Republcan Natonal Commttee repled on January 8, and n response, Pettoner fled a Moton for Flng to Be Deemed Fled as of Submsson Date.12 On February 2, 2015, the Tral Court entered a Decree and Memorandtlm dsmssng the 59th Republcan Ward Executve Commttee's Petton wth prejudce. The Tral Court found that the arbtraton forum dd rot have jursdctfon over the Republcan Natonal Commttee and therefore the purported award could not be gven legal recognton. Gven the crcumstances, the award was unjust, nequtable, unconsconable and n volaton of due process. Further, the Orphans' Court has jursdcton to determne whether an nter vvos trust has used a lawful process n attemptng :10 confrm an arbtraton award, even where the Court does not have jursdcton to confrm the award tself. On March 6, 2015, Mr. Wrs, as Trustee, appealed the Tral Court's decson dsmssng the Petton to Confrm Arbtraton Award. Smlar to Mr. Wrs' pror 1 II Respondent's Moton to Strke, Control # Pettoner's Moton for Flng to be Deemed as Fled as of Submsson Date, Control #

14 flngs wth the Court, the Notce of Appeal used the same cunous language ndcatng "c/o Vctor A. Young, Esq., General Counsel," as hs address. Moreover, the cover sheet for the appeal ndcates that the flng attorney and the flng party are Peter J. Wrs, and the appeal was sgned by Mr. Wrs hmself, whch has led.to further uncertanty as to Mr. Young's role." No appeal was fled by the Pettoner 59th Republcan Ward Executve Commttee or by the Republcan Natonal Commttee. Statement of Issues The Tral Court shall address the ssues upon whch ths matter was decded n a succnct, orderly fashon. Mr. Wrs was not ordered to submt a Statementof Errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. l 925(b) based on hs pror flngs whch Wyre confusng, prolx and non-responsve ether to the Court's nqures or the ssues. The ssues are as follows: 1. Dd the Tral Court err n fndng the alleged arbtraton award has no legal effect based on the forum's lack of n personam jursdcton over the Republcan Natonal Commttee? 1 2. Was the Tral Court correct n fndng, based on the procedures used,by the arbtraton forum, that the award entered was unjust, nequtable and unconsconable and that the arbtraton hearng was held n volaton of due process? 13 Attorney Young prevously!med a Wthdrawal of Appearance on behalf of the Trust on 9/22/2014. _ asserted on the record that Mr. Young s counsel to hm, as Trustee, and hs address for servce s c/o Mr. Young. l~lt. 10/2/14, p Mr. Young has not attempted to ether clarfy hs role or prevent the representaton that he s counsel by advsng the Court to what degree he s heren nvolved, or the nature of hs nvolvement. 5

15 : 3. Does the Orphans' Court have jursdcton to determne whether an nter vvos trust s beng used for mproper purposes? 4. Does Mr. Wrs, the arbtrator who entered the purported award, have standng to appeal the Court's Decree nullfyng hs decson? Dscusson In the nterest of judcal economy, the dscusson secton of ths Court's Memorandum enteredl on February 2, 2015 contemporaneously wth the Court's Decree, s ncorporated heren by reference n ths Opnon, as t drectly dscusses the frst three ssues on appeal: 1. The Tral Count dd not err n fndng the alleged arbtraton award has no legal effect based on the forum's lack of n personam jursdcton over the Republcan.Natonal Commttee. 2. The Tral Court correctly found, based on the procedures used by the arbtraton forum, that the award entered was unjust, nequtable and unconsconable and that the arbtraton hearng was held n volatonof due process. '. : ~ ' 3. The Orphans' Court has jursdcton to determne whether an nter v~os trust s beng used for mproper purposes. The pertnent sectclns of the Tral Court's Memorandum of February 2, 2015 ~re ; ', more fully set forth as follows: An arbtraton award n a nonjudcal arbtraton s bndng and may not be vacated or modfed "unless t s clearly shown that a party was dened a hearng or fraud, msconduct, corrupton or other rregularty caused tle rendton of an unjust, nequtable, or unconsconable award." 42 Pa.C(S The type of rregularty "refers to the process employed n reachng 6

16 the result of the [arbtraton, not the result tself." Gwn Engneers v. Crcket Club Estates Development Group, 555 A.2d 1328 (Pa.Super. 1989) ctng Chervenak, Keane & Co., Inc. v. Hotel Rttenhouse Assoc., Inc. 477 A.2d4~2 (Pa.Super. 1984). : In the present matter, the Court ordered Pettoner to address the ssue of Jursdcton and Venue. Not only dd t fal to do so, t faled to supply the most essental of nformaton, not only n ts petton but also n ts memorandum. It faled to dentfy the arbtrator, the date and place of the arbtraton hearng, and the detals of notce and/or servce to establsh jursdcton.. Whle pettoner faled to specfcally dentfy the arbtrator, snce Mr. Wrs s the only Trustee ever mentoned or dentfed, ths leads to the nescapable concluson that Mr. Wrs was n fact the arbtrator for the arbtraton hearng. Gven hs poston as Trustee, as well as an offcer of the Pettoner 59th Republcan Ward Executve Commttee and the party ntatng the arbtraton and seekng confrmaton of the award, he was anythng but mpartal.. In addton to Pettoner's falure to provde ndcaton of even tp.e semblance of a hearng, t s unquestonable that the arbtraton forum lacked n personam jursdcton over Respondent. In order for an arbtraton forum to have jursdcton over an entty, t must be proven that the entty was properly served. Reco Equp., Inc. v. John T. Subrck Contractng, Inc., 78.0 A.2d 684, 687 (Pa. Super. 2001). Where servce has not otherwse been agreed to, servce pursuant to our Rules of Cvl Procedure (whch are applcable-n Orphans' Court matters) s requred., Pettoner, wllfully faled to dsclose facts whch would have consttuted servce, thereby establshng jursdcton over Respondent, Instead, Pettoner chose to 'make the bold, unsupported asserton n ~ts Memorandum that jursdcton had been waved. ; Pettonerj s factual allegatons, scant as they are, depct a proceedng whch s foregn to our concept of due process. Except for the 1960's televson comedy about the fctonal town of"mayberry," no one, learnedjn the law or not, beleves that n Amerca, a judge, party, and prosecutor who all share the same dentty can render a decson that s gven the weghtof law. Even n "Mayberry," the fact that the sherff was also the justce of the peace and the mayor was part of the rdculous scenaro that made the show laughable. : } Pettoner;' s falure to dsclose all pertnent facts leaves the Court wth the concluson that the apparent dentty of forum, movng party, and arbtrator renders the award unjust, nequtable, and unconsconable. 7

17 Despte ~eng gven a second opportunty by ths Court's Decreelof October 6, 2014 to provde specfc facts concernng jursdcton, and upon Pettoner's complete falure to do so, we conclude that the arbtraton forum never obtaned jursdcton over Respondent by ether actual servce or by voluntary submsson. Whle the Trustee n ths matter, Mr. Wrs, has exhbted great knowledge of legal termnology, nowhere has he or hs attomey(s) attempted to address the I queston of jursdcton and servce, except to offer the untenable representaton that nether s applcable. The falure to render ;an explanaton as requred by ths Court's order s fatal to the clam and ths Court cannot gve the arbtraton hearng any legal recognton whatsoever., Ths Court s greatly concerned that an astute Pettoner and more than one lawyer have faled to render what s, n our country a unversal rght, due process of law.j Due process protects an entty from beng subject to the bndng judgments of a forum wth whch there are no meanngful "contacts, tes, or relatons." Kubck v. Letter, 614 A.2d 1110, 1113 (Pa. 1992); Irtt'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Offce of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 3!19, 66 S. Ct. 154, 160 (1945). "At a mnmum, due process requres notce and rght to be heard." Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermll, 470 U.S. 532, 512, 105 S. Ct. 1487, 1493 (1985).,. Further, an arbtraton hearng s "not a wholly nformal process and requres for ts valdty the observance of certan mnmum standards ndspensable td the securng of a far and mpartal dsposton of the merts of the controversy." Andrew v. CUNA Brokerage Servs., Inc., 976 A.2d 4~6, 501 (Pa. Super.!2009) quotng, Scholler Bros v. Otto A.C. Hagen Corp., t44 A.2d 321, 322 (Pa. Super. 1945). These mnmum standards requre thatall partes are provded wth proper notce, all the arbtrators st at the hearng, each sde s enttled to be heard and to be present when the other party's \. evdence s beng gven, and, unless the submsson allows a decson by a majorty of the arbtrators, all must jon n the award. Id. Respondent Republcan Natonal Commttee was never gven ran opportunty to be heard at the arbtraton hearng. The only notce t receved was an emal notfcaton sent two days before the alleged award was tojbe effectve.14 The emal notfcaton faled to provde the specfc detals of the alleged arbtratbn hearng, such as the actual date the hearng was held, fle place where thelarbtraton hearng was held, the arbtrators of the hearng.as well as the partes present at the hearng. The Pettoner's falure to provde ths nformaton' further llustrates the lack of fundamental farness and shows 14 On the Record Conference.N.T. I 0/2/14, p. 21, Exhbt P-1. ' 8

18 I ',/ that the arbtraton hearng was not a "far and mpartal dsposton of the merts of the controversy." Id. In summary, Pettoner cannot rase an ssue, gve the Respondent no notce of the hearng, prosecute that ssue, decdeln hs own favor, and then expect a court to gve t judcal recognton and enforceablty by enterng a judgment on ts decson. Secton 11 of the Pennsylvana Consoldated Statutes, states 'as follows: "... the nursdcton of the court of common pleas over the followng shall be exercsed through ts orphans' court dvson:... (3) Inter vvos trust - the admnstraton and dstrbuton of the real and personal property of nter vvas trusts andlthe reformaton or settng asde of any such trust... " 20 Pa. c.s. 711(3). \ The Petton currently before ths Court was orgnally fled n Orphans' Court but obvously does not fall wthn the grant of the jursdcton to ths Court. Wth the] dearth of facts, we are forced to assume that the nter vvos trust here was ~he arbtraton forum, and the only property sought to be dstrbuted was\ the property of Respondent, who s obvously not a trust. Therefore, at f~st glance, ths s not a matter of trust admnstraton and/or dstrbuton. ; However J snce ths Court s confronted wth an nter vvas trust actng ostensbly outsde ts sanctoned usual actvtes wth a cavaler dsregard for proprety and legalty, ths Court has jursdcton to see that ts admnstraton conforms to law. It s certanly wthn the provnce of Orphans' Court; to prevent nter vvos trusts from beng llegally used for mproper purposes.] Memorandum of the ~on. Matthew D. Carrafello, A.J. on Roosevelt-Bentman Trllst for Amercan Voters (ffeb. 2, 2015) (fled under O.C. No. 608 IV of 2014, control number ). Mr. Wrs, who was arbtrator of the alleged arbtraton standng to appeal the\ Tral Court's decson dsmssng the 59th Republcan Ward l., Executve Commttee's Petton. The arbtrator s not a "party," nor s the arbtrator "aggreved" by the dsmssal. I! 4. Peter J. Wrs, {he arbtrator who entered the purported award, does not! ; have standng to appeal the Tral Court's Decree nullfyng hs decson. I 1! 9 hearng,?:

19 Under Pennsylvba law, "An appeal may be taken from:... (3) A court order I, confrmng or denyng\confrmaton of an [arbtraton] award," n the same manner,!. wthn the same tme Jpd to the same extent as an appeal from a fnal order of court I n a cvl acton. 42 P~. C.S Whle t ntally appears that Mr. Wrs has! standng to appeal ths Court's dsmssal of the Petton to Confrm Arbtraton I Award, under the Penrsylvana Rules of Appellate Procedure, any party appealng an order must be an "aggreved party." Pa. R.A.P. Rule 501. As the Arbtrator, Mr. Wrs s not aggreved ~y ths Court's determnaton that the arbtraton award cannot '. be entered, because ah arbtrator by defnton s "a neutral person who resolves!., dsputes between partes, especally by means of formal arbtraton." Black's Law I ' Dctonary 45 (4th pocket ed. 2011). One cannot be deemed both a neutral and aggreved party for the purposes of1tgatng the same ssue. Moreover, the Pennsylvana Rules of Cvl Procedure state that "an.,,...,,....,,,,.".. may not be called to testfy as to what transpred before the arbtrators." Pa. Rule 1311 (b ). If an a~btrator s not permtted to even testfy as to what natmeneo durng an arbtraton proceedng, then t seems llogcal that an arbtrator I deemed an aggreved!party capable of appealng the confrmaton or denal of I arbtraton award by tlhe Tral Court.! 10

20 Concluson affrmed. The unwllngness requrements. l of the Pettoner to permt the trbunal's actons to 1be vewed wth transparency, and the falure to prove the necessary elements of due I! ',, I. process, left the Tral Cour; wth no recourse but to have dsmssed ths matter. If ; I : an arbtraton award ~ to be gven the effect and force of law, then the award tself \ must be demonstratedlto have been obtaned wthout volatng our most basc legal In that all ssues\ have been fully addressed, and the Tral Court havng ente1ed!. ts decson n accordance wth controllng law, t s respectfully submtted that t.be '. I Dated: _sjzz/l f Peter J. Wrs Brtan Henry, Esq. I Jonathan Goldsten, Esq. I Lawrence Barth, Esq. \ I l Mark A. Pacella, Esq. I! 11