In Re: The Estate of Orenak, R., Appeal of: Orenak ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • J-A26014-16
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    IN RE: ESTATE OF RONALD MARK                    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    ORENAK                                                PENNSYLVANIA
    APPEAL OF: ANN L. ORENAK, AS
    EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD
    MARK ORENAK
    No. 1830 WDA 2015
    Appeal from the Order Entered November 5, 2015
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County
    Orphans' Court at No(s): 32-15-0019
    BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., RANSOM, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
    MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                   FILED DECEMBER 22, 2016
    Ann L. Orenak (Appellant), Executrix of the Estate of Ronald Mark
    Orenak,1 appeals from the orphans’ court’s November 5, 2015 order that
    denied her Petition for Citation of Declaratory Judgment. The denial of the
    Petition directed that the funds in a joint bank account were to be distributed
    to Marilyn Burns and were not to be included in Ronald Orenak’s estate or
    distributed in accordance with his will. After review, we affirm.
    Appellant’s statement of the question involved reads as follows:
    “Whether Ronald Orenak’s Estate is entitled to Ronald’s half of the funds in
    Anne Orenak’s[2] joint accounts, where Ronald died only four (4) days after
    ____________________________________________
    1
    Ann Orenak is Ronald Orenak’s widow.
    2
    Anne Orenak, Ronald’s and Marilyn’s mother, had established a joint bank
    account in her and her children’s names.
    J-A26014-16
    co-owner, Anne Orenak[?]” Appellant’s brief at 3. To support her statement
    of the question, Appellant sets forth the following three arguments:
    I. The MPAA[3] should not be applied mechanically to the factual
    anomaly of this case.
    II. There is sufficient evidence to rebut the survivorship
    presumption of the MPAA.
    III. Novosielski[4] suggests that provisions of a [w]ill may be
    considered, and its progeny do not preclude rebuttal of the
    presumption.
    Id. at 10, 13 and 18.
    In addressing these issues, we are guided by the following:
    Our standard of review of an orphans’ court’s decision is
    deferential. In re Estate of Strahsmeier, 
    54 A.3d 359
    , 362
    (Pa. Super. 2012). When reviewing an orphans’ court decree,
    this Court must determine whether the record is free from legal
    error and whether the orphans’ court’s findings are supported by
    the record. 
    Id. at 362-363
    . Because the orphans’ court sits as
    the finder of fact, it determines the credibility of the witnesses
    and, on review, this Court will not reverse its credibility
    determinations absent an abuse of discretion.          
    Id. at 363
    .
    However, this Court is not bound to give the same deference to
    the orphans’ court conclusions of law. 
    Id.
     Where the rules of
    law on which the orphans’ court relied are palpably wrong or
    clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court’s decree. 
    Id.
    Moreover, we point out that an abuse of discretion is not merely
    an error of judgment. However, if in reaching a conclusion, the
    court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised
    is shown by the record to be manifestly unreasonable or the
    product of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, discretion has
    been abused. 
    Id.
    ____________________________________________
    3
    Multiple Parties Account Act, 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301-6306.
    4
    In re Novosielski, 
    992 A.2d 89
     (Pa. 2010).
    -2-
    J-A26014-16
    Estate of Sacchetti v. Sacchetti, 
    128 A.3d 273
    , 281-82 (Pa. Super. 2015)
    (quoting In re Estate of Zeevering, 
    78 A.3d 1106
    , 1108 (Pa. Super.
    2013)).
    We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the
    applicable law, and the thorough opinion of the Honorable Carol Hanna of
    the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County, dated November 5, 2015.
    We conclude that Judge Hanna’s opinion accurately disposes of the issue and
    accompanying arguments presented by Appellant.      Accordingly, we adopt
    her opinion as our own and affirm the order denying Appellant’s petition on
    that basis.
    Order affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 12/22/2016
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1830 WDA 2015

Filed Date: 12/22/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2016