In Re: Estate of John J. Lynn ( 2016 )

J-A14020-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ESTATE OF JOHN J. LYNN, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
DECEASED PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: DONNA LYNN ROBERTS
No. 1413 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered July 17, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 4014 of 0098
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JULY 28, 2016
Donna Lynn Roberts brings this appeal from the order entered July 17,
2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, holding that “good
cause” existed for the appointment of Michael J. Hudacek, Jr., Esquire as
Administrator of the Estate of John Lynn, Deceased, and ordering Hudacek
to remain as Administrator of the Estate of John Lynn until its conclusion.
Roberts, who is the daughter of John Lynn (the Decedent), contends the
orphans’ court erred in (1) “failing to reverse the Register of Wills[’]
improper refusal to first consider and grant Letters of Administration to
[Roberts],” and (2) “determining that good cause existed for the
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A14020-16
appointment of Michael J. Hudacek, Jr., Esquire as Administrator of the
Estate of John J. Lynn, Deceased.” Roberts Brief at 5.
In addition, Roberts raises a third issue, in which she contends the
orphans’ court erred in determining the writing dated August 30, 2007 that
she tendered to the Register of Wills as the will of the Decedent was not a
valid will. Initially, we note that the July 17, 2015, order under appeal only
concerns the appointment of Michael Hudacek, Jr., Esquire, as Administrator
of the estate of the Decedent. As will be more fully discussed, the issue of
whether the writing of August 30, 2007 was a valid will was the subject of
the orphans’ court’s opinion/order of June 11, 2015. Based upon the
following, we affirm.
The orphans’ court aptly summarized the background of this case, as
follows:
The Decedent, John J. Lynn, died on January 16, 2014. The
Decedent was predeceased by his wife, Rose Marie Lynn, who
died on May 27, 2010. He was also predeceased by a son, John
Lynn, who died on December 19, 2013, unmarried. The
Decedent is survived by three (3) natural daughters, namely,
Donna Lynn Roberts, Debra A. Wilmarth and Karen E. Honabach.
Immediately following his death, the daughter of the Decedent,
Debra A. Wilmarth petitioned the Register of Wills of Luzerne
County to be appointed as Administratrix [of] her father’s Estate.
Immediately thereafter, Donna Lynn Roberts, daughter of the
Decedent, appeared at the Register of Wills Office to seek
probate of a writing purported to be a Will of the Decedent, John
J. Lynn, dated August 30, 2007. She also sought by Petition to
be appointed Administratrix of her father’s Estate.
-2-
J-A14020-16
Following a hearing by the Register of Wills on the Petition for
Grant of Letters of Debra A. Wilmarth, held on April 28, 2014,
the Register of Wills issued the following:
“ORDER”
“And now, this 8th day of May, 2014, following a hearing
on Deborah Wilmarth’s Petition for Citation to show cause
why Petitioner should not be appointed to Administrator
of the Estate of John J. Lynn, deceased, the Petition is
hereby DENIED.
Michael J. Hudacek, Jr., Esquire is hereby appointed
Administrator of the Estate of John J. Lynn, deceased,
and shall be compensated at an hourly rate of $150.00
paid from the Estate of John J. Lynn.”
Orphans’ Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 11/6/2015, at 1–2.
After the Register of Wills’ decision to appoint Michael Hudacek, Jr.,
Esquire, and to deny probate of the writing tendered by Roberts as the will
of the Decedent, Roberts filed an appeal to the orphans’ court to permit
probate of the writing dated August 30, 2007, and/or to permit issuance of
letters of administration to her. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 908. On January 29,
2015, the orphans’ court heard the testimony of five witnesses, namely,
Donna Lynn Roberts, Notary Public Richard Burick, Pauline Panatieri, friend
of the Decedent’s wife and Roberts, on behalf of Roberts; and Roberts’
sister, Karen Honabach, and Honabach’s daughter, Jessica Lindgren.
On June 11, 2015, the orphans’ court issued an opinion/order, stating
“[t]here does not exist a record from the hearing held before the Register of
Wills,” and therefore the court was “unable to determine the reasoning of
the Register of Wills’ decision not to appoint [one or more] of the daughters
-3-
J-A14020-16
of the Decedent to serve as Adminstratrix of the Estate.” Orphans’ Court
Opinion/Order, 6/11/2015, at 7. The orphans’ court directed “that issue is
remanded to the Register of Wills to make a determination supported by
findings of facts. In its findings of fact, the Register of Wills shall set forth
the good cause that existed to warrant the appointment of Michael J.
Hudacek, Jr., Esquire.” Id. at 7.
On July 7, 2015, the Register of Wills filed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law in support of its appointment of Muchael Hudacek, Jr.,
Esquire as Administrator of the Decedent’s estate, as ordered by the
orphans’ court. The Register of Wills’ found, inter alia, that two of the
Decedent’s daughters, Wilmarth and Roberts, objected to the appointment of
the other as adminstratrix of the Estate; that neither Wilmarth nor Roberts
agreed to serve as co-administratices; that the Decedent’s daughter, Karen
E. Honabach, did not wish to serve as administratrix; and there was
“extreme hostility” between Wilmarth and Roberts. See Register of Wills’
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 7/7/2015, at 2 (Findings of Fact
Nos. 9–12). The Register of Wills concluded: “Due to the extreme level of
conflict between Debra Wilmarth and Donna Lynn Roberts and their
unwillingness to serve as Co-Administratrices, good cause exists to deviate
from the order listed and appoint another fit person.” Id. (Conclusion of
Law, No. 17). The Register of Wills determined that “Michael Hudacek, Jr.,
-4-
J-A14020-16
Esquire, is unquestionably fit to serve as Administrator of this Estate.” Id.
(Conclusion of Law, No. 18).
On July 17, 2015, by order, the orphans’ court adopted and
incorporated these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, stating:
AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2015, upon review of the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by the Register of
Wills of Luzerne County on July 7, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED,
ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are adopted by
the Court and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Good cause existed for the appointment of Michael J.
Hudacek, Jr., Esquire as Administrator of the Estate of John Lynn
as set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
3. The appeal seeking to remove Michael J. Hudacek, Jr., Esquire
as Administrator of the Estate of John Lynn is DENIED.
4. Michael J. Hudacek, Jr., Esquire shall remain as Administrator
of the Estate of John Lynn until its conclusion.
Order, July 17, 2015. This appeal followed.1
Roberts lists three questions for this Court’s review:
Whether the lower court committed plain error and/or abused its
discretion by failing to reverse the Register of Wills[’] improper
refusal to first consider and grant Letters of Administration to
[Roberts], before issuing letters to Michael J. Hudacek, Jr.,
Esquire?
Whether the lower court committed plain error and/or abused its
discretion in its Court Order dated July 17, 2015, by determining
that good cause existed for the appointment of Michael J.
____________________________________________
1
Roberts complied with the orphans’ court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
-5-
J-A14020-16
Hudacek, Jr., Esquire as Administrator of the Estate of John J.
Lynn, Deceased, and denying the removal of Michael J. Hudacek,
Jr., Esquire as Administrator and refusing to replace him with the
Decedent’s natural daughter, [Roberts]?
Whether the lower court committed plain error and/or abused its
discretion in its Court Order dated June 11, 2015, by its
determination that the writing dated August 30, 2007 was not a
Will because it lacked testamentary intent, lacked a positive
disposition of property and because it is unclear as to whether or
not the signature on the document is that of the Decedent?
Roberts’ Brief, at 5–6.
Roberts’ first two issues concern Roberts’ petition for letters of
administration and the appointment of Michael Hudacek, Jr., Esquire, as
administrator of the estate of the Decedent. We address these issues
together.
Section 3155 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciary (PEF) Code
prioritizes the various parties or classes entitled to a right of administration.
Section 3155 provides:
(b) Letters of administration. — Letters of administration shall
be granted by the register, in such form as the case shall
require, to one or more of those hereinafter mentioned and,
except for good cause, in the following order:
(1) Those entitled to the residuary estate under the will.
(2) The surviving spouse.
(3) Those entitled under the intestate law as the register,
in his discretion, shall judge will best administer the
estate, giving preference, however, according to the sizes
of the shares of those in this class.
(4) The principal creditors of the decedent at the time of his
death.
-6-
J-A14020-16
(5) Other fit persons.
(6) If anyone of the foregoing shall renounce his right to letters
of administration, the register, in his discretion, may appoint a
nominee of the person so renouncing in preference to the
persons set forth in any succeeding paragraph.
20 Pa.C.S. § 3155(b)(1)–(6) (emphasis added).
Roberts claims under Section 3155(b)(3),2 she would be a proper,
entitled party to be named administratrix of the Decedent’s estate, and that
the Register of Wills improperly refused to consider her petition before
granting letters of administration to Michael J. Hudacek, Jr., Esquire.
Roberts argues that in the Register of Wills’ denial of her sister, Debra
Wilmarth’s, petition for grant of letters and in the appointment of Michael J.
Hudacek, Jr., Esquire, “no ‘good cause’ is cited for the appointment, nor any
explanation given for the Register of Wills’ refusal to consider the petition for
letters of Donna Lynn Roberts.” Roberts’ Brief at 17–18. Roberts argues
that “[t]his amounted to a procedural default by the Register of Wills in
____________________________________________
2
Roberts’ claim she falls under Section 3155(b)(3) is based upon 20 Pa.C.S.
§ 2103, governing “Share of other than surviving spouse,” which states:
The share of the estate, if any, to which the surviving spouse is
not entitled, and the entire estate if there is no surviving spouse,
shall pass in the following order:
(1) Issue. — To the issue of the decedent.
20 Pa.C.S. § 2103(1).
-7-
J-A14020-16
ignoring section 3155(b)” and she was “clearly prejudiced by the improper
actions of the Register of Wills. Id. at 18. Roberts concludes:
In the instant case, the Register of Wills had a duty to accept
[Roberts’] petition for Letters and committed an abuse of
discretion and an error of law in refusing to act on the petition
for Letters of Administration that she tendered to the Register on
three (3) separate occasions, and instead appointing Attorney
Hudacek, without notice to the Estate’s heirs. Therefore, the
Orphans’ Court was required to sustain the appeal of [Roberts],
vacate the [L]etters granted to Attorney Hudacek, and direct the
[R]egister to grant [L]etters to [Roberts]. It committed an error
of law and an abuse of discretion in failing to do so.
Roberts’ Brief, at 18-19.
To address the issues raised, we are guided by the following legal
principles:
As [20 Pa.C.S. § 3155] makes clear, it is the register who has
the authority and duty to issue letters. In Re Estate of Klink,
743 A.2d 482, 485 (Pa. Super. 1999); 20 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 711(12),
901, 3155(a), (b). When doing so, the register has some degree
of discretion in selecting the appointee. [In re Estate of]
Dilbon, 690 A.2d [1216,] 1218, 1219 [(Pa. Super. 2007)].
However, that discretion must be exercised within the strictures
of 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3155. Klink, 743 A.2d at 484. More
specifically, the register can exercise discretion only within the
class of entitled persons and cannot, without good cause,
deviate from the order of appointment set forth in the statute.
Id.; Dilbon, 690 A.2d at 1218, 1219.
The register’s decision to issue letters is a judicial act. Estate of
Osborne, 363 Pa. Super. 200, 525 A.2d 788, 794 n.9 (Pa.
Super. 1987). A party contesting that act may appeal to the
orphans’ court. Dilbon, 690 A.2d at 1218, 1219. In turn, a party
challenging a ruling of the orphans' court may, of course, appeal
to this Court. See Klink, 743 A.2d at 484; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 742. If
the orphans’ court has held an evidentiary hearing, we will then
afford the court’s findings the same weight as a jury verdict, and
we will disturb the court’s decree only if it is unsupported by the
-8-
J-A14020-16
evidence or if it includes an error of law. Dilbon, 690 A.2d at
1218. However, if the orphans’ court did not take evidence, then
our appellate review is limited to determining if the register
abused its discretion. Klink, 743 A.2d at 484. An abuse of
discretion is not merely an error in judgment. In Re Paxson
Trust I, 893 A.2d 99, 112 (Pa. Super. 2006). Rather, it involves
bias, partiality, prejudice, ill will, or misapplication of law. Id. If
we do find an abuse of discretion, one option is for us to vacate
the order of the orphans’ court which upheld the issuance of
letters, and then remand the case for an appropriate
appointment by the register in accordance with 20 Pa.C.S.A. §
3155. Estate of Fritz v. Fritz, 798 A.2d 243, 245 (Pa. Super.
2002).
In re Estate of Tigue, 926 A.2d 453, 456-57 (Pa. Super. 2007). Here, the
Register of Wills conducted a hearing, and the orphans’ court adopted the
Register of Wills’ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed July 7, 2015.
Therefore, regarding the appointment of the administrator, our appellate
review is limited to determining if the register abused its discretion.
The orphans’ court, in analyzing Roberts’ claims, opined:
The Register of Wills erred by not having accepted the petition
for Letters of Administration when presented by Appellant. If it
had, there would have been two conflicting requests to serve as
Administratrix for the Estate and that would have been the
subject of a hearing. As a practical matter however, the fact that
the petition of Appellant was not accepted did not prejudice the
Appellant as a hearing was appropriately held by the Register of
Wills and accordingly, the error was harmless.
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/11/2015, at 7.
In the case at hand, Appellant, Donna Lynn Roberts, daughter of
the Decedent and Debra Wilmarth, daughter of the Decedent,
both presented petitions to be appointed Adminstratrix of the
Estate of John Lynn. No renunciations were filed in this matter,
and accordingly, in terms of priority, the daughters of the
Decedent would have a higher priority than that of Michael J.
-9-
J-A14020-16
Hudacek, Jr. However, Section 3155(b) provides that the
register may grant Letters other than in the sequence listed if
“good cause to do so exists.” The Register of Wills submitted
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on July 7, 2015, which
were subsequently adopted by this Court on July 17, 2015. The
Findings of Fact stated that a hearing was held on Debra
Wìlmarth’s Petition to be appointed as Administratrix of the
Decedent’s Estate on April 28, 2014. At the hearing, testimony
was taken from all three sisters, and Jessica Lindgren,
granddaughter of the Decedent. Both Debra Wilmarth and
[Roberts] objected to the appointment of the other as
Adminstratrix of the Estate, and neither agreed to serve as
Co-Administratrices. Karen E. Honabach did not wish to serve as
Administratrix. The Register of Wills noted “extreme hostility”
between Debra Wilmarth and [Roberts], constituting good cause
to deviate from the order listed, and appoint another fit person
to serve as Administrator of the Estate, namely Michael J.
Hudacek. There is no question, and the parties have stipulated,
that Michael J. Hudacek, Jr. is a fit person to serve. Accordingly,
good cause existed to appoint Michael J. Hudacek as
administrator of this Estate over Debra Wilmarth or Donna Lynn
Roberts[.]
Orphans’ Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 11/6/2015, at 8–9. We agree
with the orphans’ court.
Roberts suffered no harm as a result of the Register of Wills’ refusal to
consider her petition for letters of administration. When Roberts attempted
to file her petition, the Register of Wills informed Roberts a petition for grant
of letters of administration had already been filed by her sister, Debra
Wilmarth. See N.T., 1/29/2015, at 32. Roberts was told that her petition
was refused because there was already a hearing scheduled. See id. In
fact, the Register of Wills held a hearing on Roberts’ sister’s, Debra
Wilmarth’s petition and heard testimony from all three sisters, and Jessica
Lindgren, daughter of Honabach and granddaughter of the Decedent.
- 10 -
J-A14020-16
Roberts and Wilmarth each objected to the appointment of the other and did
not agree to serve together. The Register of Wills concluded there was
extreme conflict between Roberts and Wilmarth. In view of the testimony
presented at the hearing,3 it is apparent that the Register of Wills considered
Roberts’ entitlement to serve as administrator. Therefore, the failure to
accept Roberts’ petition as a competing petition along with Wilmarth’s
petition for letters, or as a subsequent petition, if error, was harmless
because the hearing on Wilmarth’s petition obviated the formality of a
separate hearing on Roberts’ petition for letters, before appointing Hudacek
as administrator of the Estate.
In addition, Roberts cannot demonstrate that the Register of Wills
ignored Section 3155(b) and “good cause,” in light of the Register of Wills’
hearing, discussed above, on the petition filed by Wilmarth, who was on
equal footing with Roberts under Section 3155(b)(3). While the Register of
Wills’ April 28, 2014 order did not cite “good cause” for the appointment of
Michael Hudacek, Jr., Esquire, the order indicated there had been a hearing
on Wilmarth’s petition. Furthermore, the Register of Wills subsequently
complied with the orphans’ court’s order to file Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, and explicitly stated “good cause exists” to deviate from
____________________________________________
3
There is no transcript of the hearing held before the Register of Wills in the
certified record. The Register of Wills has summarized the testimony in its
Findings of Facts. See Register of Wills’ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, 7/7/2015, at 2 (unnumbered).
- 11 -
J-A14020-16
the order of priority provided in 20 Pa.C.S. § 3155 and to appoint of
Hudacek as administrator of the Estate. See Register of Wills Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law, 7/7/2015.4 Accordingly, as the Register of
Wills’ refusal to accept Roberts’ petition for letters of administration was
harmless error, and because there is no evidence that the Register of Wills
ignored 20 Pa.C.S. § 3155(b) and “good cause” in the April 28, 2014,
appointment of Michael Hudacek, Jr., Esquire, as administrator of the Estate,
we conclude Roberts’ first two issues alleging “procedural default” by the
Register of Wills warrant no relief.
____________________________________________
4
We note the Decedent’s granddaughter, Jessica Lynn Lindgrin, who is the
daughter of Karen Honabach and 28 years of age, could have been
appointed by the Register of Wills as administratrix of the Estate. See N.T.,
1/29/2015, at 100–101. However, the hostility between Wilmarth and
Roberts, and Roberts’ commencement of an action against Wilmarth,
Honabach and Lindgrin, supports the Register of Wills’ finding of “good
cause” for the appointment of Michael Hudacek, Jr., Esquire. In this regard,
we note the Register of Wills’ Findings of Fact, Nos. 12–14:
12. There was extreme hostility between Debra Wilmarth and
Donna Lynn Roberts.
13. Both Debra Wilmarth and Donna Lynn Roberts levied
multiple and various accusations against the other regarding the
treatment or mistreatment of Decedent.
14. On December 16, 2013, Donna Lynn Roberts filed a civil
action against Karen E. Honabach, Debra Wilmarth and Jessica
Lindgrin claiming Infliction of Emotional Distress and Defamation
regarding Donna Lynn Roberts[’] care of Decedent.
Register of Wills’ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 7/7/2015, at 2
(unnumbered) (Findings of Fact, Nos. 12-14).
- 12 -
J-A14020-16
In the final issue, Roberts maintains the orphans’ court erred in its
order dated June 11, 2015, by determining the August 30, 2007 writing
presented by Roberts was not a will.
The hand printed document, signed and dated August 30, 2007, reads,
as follows:
August 30, 2007
Since I loaned Karen $5,000 for her home in 2005 and never
received payment, and since Debbie is no longer in our lives and
made it clear that she hated us, and since Johnny may squander
the house away. I want Donna to have the house since she has
been taking care of it since 2006.
John J. Lynn /s/
The document also bears the date “2-18-12” with an additional signature of
“John J Lynn,” along with a notary’s seal and signature, dated February 18,
2012.5
Initially, we address the timeliness of this appeal with regard to the
orphans’ court’s June 11, 2015 opinion/order. The orphans’ court
determined the writing dated August 30, 2007 was not a valid will, and
stated at the end thereof:
THE REGISTER OF WILLS IS DIRECTED TO ENTER THIS ORDER
OF RECORD AND IS DIRECTED TO MAIL A COPY OF THIS ORDER
TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD.
____________________________________________
5
See Roberts’ “Appeal Under Section 908 of Probate, Estates, and
Fiduciaries Code from Probate to Permit Probate of Will dated August 30,
2007, and/or the Issuance of Letters of Administration to Decedent’s
Daughter, Donna Lynn Roberts,” Exhibit 2.
- 13 -
J-A14020-16
Orphans’ Court’s Opinion/Order, 6/11/2015, at 8.
Roberts filed a notice of appeal on August 14, 2015, and indicated that
the appeal was taken from “the final order of the Orphans’ Court Division of
the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, dated July 17, 2015, a copy
of which is attached hereto, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(2), (5) & (6). [6]”
Notice of Appeal, 8/14/2015. As we have already stated, the July 17, 2015
order deals solely with the appointment of Michael Hudacek, Jr., Esquire,
discussed above, and does not mention the orphan’s court’s June 11, 2015
determination that the August 30, 2007 writing was not a testamentary
writing.
____________________________________________
6
Rule 342 provides, in part:
(a) General rule. An appeal may be taken as of right from the
following orders of the Orphans’ Court Division:
….
(2) An order determining the validity of a will or trust;
…
(5) An order determining the status of fiduciaries, beneficiaries,
or creditors in an estate, trust, or guardianship;
(6) An order determining an interest in real or personal property
….
Pa.R.A.P. (a)(2), (5) and (6).
- 14 -
J-A14020-16
When Roberts filed a Docketing Statement in this Court, she
characterized the appeal as taken from “the final order of July 17, 2015 +
interlocutory order dated June 11, 2015.” Roberts’ Docketing Statement,
filed September 10, 2015 (emphasis added). However, under Pa.R.A.P.
342(a)(2) the orphans’ court’s June 11, 2015, opinion/order was
immediately appealable, not interlocutory as suggested by Roberts, and the
appeal period for that order expired 30 days later, on Monday, July 13,
2015. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (“Computation of time”); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a)
(notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order from
which the appeal is taken). Since the present appeal was filed on August
14, 2015, the appeal appears untimely with regard to the June 11, 2015
opinion/order.
We note, however, the Register of Wills failed to comply with the
orphans’ court’s mandate at the end of the June 11, 2015 opinion/order to
enter the order and mail a copy of the order to all the parties. The orphans’
court’s docket reflects the orphans’ court’s decision was entered on the
docket on June 11, 2015 as an “opinion” only, and with no indication that
Pa.R.C.P. 236 notice was given to the parties.7 Nevertheless, Roberts
____________________________________________
7
The date of entry of an order is the day that the clerk of the court mails or
delivers copies of the order to the parties. See Pa.R.A.P. 108(a). In a matter
subject to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the date of entry is the
day that the clerk makes the notation in the docket that notice of entry of
the order has been given pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236(b). Pa.R.A.P. 108(b);
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 15 -
J-A14020-16
frames the issue of the August 30, 2007 writing by acknowledging “the
Court’s Order dated June 11, 2015.” Roberts’s Brief at 6.
Even if, considering the circumstances presented by the record herein,
we consider the June 11, 2015, opinion/order, there would be no basis upon
which to disturb the orphans’ court’s decision. The orphans’ court has
provided a sound analysis, which we adopt as dispositive of the issue. 8 See
Orphans’ Court’s Opinion/Order, 6/11/2015, at 2–4 (Findings of Fact Nos. 1-
19), 4–6 (Law and Discussion) (explaining: (1) the writing lacked
testamentary intent, as it is impossible to tell if Decedent was contemplating
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 735 A.2d 113 (Pa. 1999). This Court has
applied Rule 108(b) to determine the date of entry of an order of the
Orphans’ Court. See In re: K.P., 872 A.2d 1227 (Pa. Super. 2005); Estate
of Keefauver, 518 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 1986).
8
Our scope and standard of review on appeal from a decree of the Orphans’
Court adjudicating an appeal from probate is as follows:
In a will contest, the hearing judge determines the
credibility of the witnesses. The record is to be reviewed
in the light most favorable to appellee, and review is to
be limited to determining whether the trial court’s
findings of fact were based upon legally competent and
sufficient evidence and whether there is an error of law or
abuse of discretion. Only where it appears from a review
of the record that there is no evidence to support the
court's findings or that there is a capricious disbelief of
evidence may the court's findings be set aside.
Kreisher v. Schumacher (In re Estate of Schumacher), 133 A.3d 45,
49-50 (Pa. Super. 2016), citing In re Bosley, 26 A.3d 1104, 1107 (Pa.
Super. 2011) (internal citations omitted).
- 16 -
J-A14020-16
that disposition should only take effect upon death; (2) the writing lacked a
positive disposition of property where at the time of the writing the subject
home was owned by the Decedent and his wife as tenants by the entireties,
and there is no reference to wife or her interest; 9 (3) the only witness who
testified to the Decedent’s signature at the end of the writing was Roberts,
and Honabach and Lindgrin testified more credibly that the signature on the
document was not the Decedent’s; and (4) the fact that Roberts and a
notary public witnessed the Decedent sign the document in 2012 is of little
effect because on December 10, 2010, the Decedent was adjudicated an
incapacitated person and the record is devoid of testimony that when he
signed the document on February 18, 2012, he possessed testamentary
capacity.) Accordingly, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/28/2016
____________________________________________
9
The Decedent’s wife died on May 27, 2010. See Orphans’ Court June 11,
2015 Opinion/Order, at 2 (Finding of Fact No. 1).
- 17 -