In the Matter of the Estate of John S. Palys.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-1041

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN S. PALYS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The appellant Linda Collier appeals from a decree and order

for complete settlement dated July 5, 2023, regarding the estate

of her cousin, John S. Palys. John Palys died on December 13,

2019, and the decree and order in question essentially decided

two things -- (1) it admitted John Palys’s will to formal

probate, and (2) it determined John Palys’s heirs at law.

The instant appeal of Linda Collier is without merit,

because Linda Collier did not file the required affidavit of

objections. The July 5, 2023 order at issue resulted from a

petition by the estate’s personal representative that sought a

determination of testacy, a determination of heirs at law, and

the allowance of the will of John Palys. The Probate and Family

Court issued a citation with a return date of May 9, 2022.

Linda Collier filed a timely appearance and objection to the

petition, but she did not file an affidavit of objections within

thirty days of May 9 (or at any time), as required by G. L.
c. 190B, § 1-401 (e). A Probate and Family Court judge

accordingly struck her objection prior to entering the July 5,

2023 decree and order for complete settlement.

On appeal, Linda Collier does not argue that she filed an

affidavit of objections, and similarly does not argue that the

judge erred in striking her objection. As there was no error in

striking Linda Collier’s objection, she cannot provide a basis

on which the July 5, 2023 order could be vacated or reversed.1

The personal representative requests appellate attorney’s

fees pursuant to Mass. R. App. P. 25, as appearing in 481 Mass.

1654 (2019), for having to respond to this appeal, which he

argues is frivolous. An appeal is "frivolous . . . where there

can be no reasonable expectation of a reversal under well-

settled law." Dacey v. Burgess, 491 Mass. 311, 319 (2023). We

agree that the appeal is frivolous but note that the personal

representative included some unnecessary arguments in his brief.

Accordingly, we caution counsel to exercise restraint in the

amount requested. The estate shall file with this court and

serve on the appellant a submission detailing and supporting the

amount of its attorney's fees and costs incurred on appeal, in

1 The appellant's brief addresses many other issues, many
irrelevant to this appeal, but it does not address the threshold
question of whether Linda Collier's objection was properly
stricken. We accordingly need not reach any of the other issues
referenced in the brief.

2
accordance with the procedure described in Fabre v. Walton, 441

Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004).2

Decree and order for complete
settlement entered July 5,
2023, affirmed.

By the Court (Rubin,
Englander & D’Angelo, JJ.3),

Assistant Clerk

Entered: April 26, 2024.

2 The estate shall file their submission within fourteen
days of the issuance of the rescript in this case. The
appellant will have fourteen days thereafter to file a response.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

3