Estate of: Kuehner, F. Appeal of: Kuehner, P. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • J-A20043-14
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    ESTATE OF: FAYE P. KUEHNER,              :      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :            PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    :
    :
    :
    APPEAL OF: PAUL P. KUEHNER,              :
    :
    Appellant               :           No. 3591 EDA 2013
    Appeal from the Order entered on December 4, 2013
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,
    Orphans' Court Division, No. 05-0825
    BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., MUNDY and MUSMANNO, JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:                      FILED AUGUST 28, 2014
    pro se, from the Order denying
    his Petition to Remove the Individual Trustee. We affirm.
    and Wachovia Bank as both the executors and trustees (collectively referred
    entitled to receive a monthly income, and the Trustees had discretion to
    distribute additional payments of the principal for his support, maintenance
    principal at ages 35 and 40.
    J-A20043-14
    In 2006, Kuehner, who has been unemployed for decades, purchased
    real estate, valued at between $300,000 and $325,000, against the advice
    of his legal counsel.   The property was encumbered with over $25,000 in
    debt, in addition to the outstanding mortgage.       Due to a lack of funds,
    Kuehner agreed to sell the property in 2008.       As a result, the Trustees
    agreed to pay Kuehner an additional $2,000 each month in addition to the
    provided Kuehner with $5,000 to purchase a vehicle. Kuehner did not sell
    the property, claiming that he had not received offers.
    In 2012, First Niagara Bank replaced Wachovia Bank as the corporate
    Trustees petitioned the court to convert the structure of the Trust so that
    Kuehner could receive more money.         During that time period, Kuehner
    began to repeatedly call the New Trustees.      Consequently, the trial court
    ordered that Kuehner could contact the Trustees in writing, but could only
    call them twice per month.
    The New Trustees filed an Account of the Trust in 2013. Kuehner filed
    Objections to that Account, which were overruled. Kuehner then challenged
    a bill for $10,648, which was incurred when the New Trustees attempted to
    convert the structure of the Trust. Most recently, Kuehner filed a Petition for
    Removal of the Individual Trustee, Delaney. On December 4, 2013, the trial
    -2-
    J-A20043-14
    approving the challenged charge as reasonable.           Kuehner filed a timely
    Notice of Appeal.
    On appeal, Kuehner raises the following questions for our review:
    I. Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion or [err] in not asking
    [] Delaney to account for the money he billed the [T]rust?
    II. Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion or [err] in not
    removing [] Delaney and replacing him with Mr. Jeffrey First
    Brief for Appellant at 4 (issues renumbered for ease of disposition).
    The standard of review in an appea
    well-
    In Re Estate of Brown, 
    30 A.3d 1200
    , 1206 (Pa. Super.
    2011) (citation omitted). Specifically,
    [we] must determine whether the record is free of legal error
    -finder, it determines
    the credibility of the witnesses and, on review, we will not
    reverse its credibility determinations absent an abuse of
    discretion. However, we are not constrained to give the same
    deference to any resulting legal conclusions. Where the rules of
    law on which the court relied are palpably wrong or clearly
    In re McKinney, 
    67 A.3d 824
    , 829 (Pa. Super. 2013).
    In his first claim, Kuehner asserts that Delaney has consistently over-
    billed the Trust. Brief for Appellant at 7. Specifically, he challenges the July
    2012 charge for $10,648, and a September 2012 charge for $3,500. 
    Id. at 7-8.
    -3-
    J-A20043-14
    However, Kuehner does not provide any pertinent analysis or cite to
    any evidence regarding what Delaney was working on at the time, or what
    he believes the charges should have been for that work.         See Pa.R.A.P.
    2119(a) (requiring each argument to be supported by discussion and citation
    of pertinent authorities); see also Miller v. Miller, 
    744 A.2d 778
    , 788 (Pa.
    establishing his entitlement to relief by showing that the ruling of the trial
    this claim is waived on appeal. See J.J. DeLuca Co. v. Toll Naval Assocs.,
    
    56 A.3d 402
    , 411 (Pa. Super. 2012) (stating that claims are waived where
    an appellant does not develop an argument or cite to any authority to
    support the claim).
    In his second claim, Kuehner argues that Delaney should be removed
    as Trustee for committing a serious breach of trust. Brief for Appellant at 5-
    6.   He also argues that the trial court told him that he could replace the
    Trustee if he found someone else who is qualified. 
    Id. at 5.
    Kuehner claims
    that First is a trustworthy and honest person with 23 years of experience,
    and that he should be allowed to take over as trustee. 
    Id. The Uniform
    Trust Act sets forth the grounds for removal of a trustee
    as follows:
    The court may remove a trustee if it finds that removal of the
    trustee best serves the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust
    and is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust, a
    suitable cotrustee or successor trustee is available and:
    -4-
    J-A20043-14
    (1) the trustee has committed a serious breach of
    trust;
    (2) lack of cooperation among cotrustees substantially
    impairs the administration of the trust;
    (3) the trustee has not effectively administered the
    unwillingness or persistent failures; or
    (4) there has been a substantial change              of
    circumstances. A corporate reorganization of         an
    institutional trustee, including a plan of merger    or
    consolidation, is not itself a substantial change    of
    circumstances.
    20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7766(b).
    Kuehner argues that Delaney committed a serious breach of trust by
    over-billing the Trust and ignoring his phone calls. Brief for Appellant at 5-7.
    As stated above, Kuehner did not provide an argument or cite any pertinent
    authority with regard to the over-billing claims. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); see
    also J.J. DeLuca 
    Co., 56 A.3d at 411
    . In any event, the trial court found
    that the charges were reasonable. See Trial Court Order, 12/4/13. As to
    the claim that Delaney ignores his phone calls, the trial court balanced
    Trustees to conduct business, and Kuehner has not shown sufficient cause to
    disturb that finding.    See Trial Court Opinion, 9/7/12, at 9.       Therefore,
    Kuehner has not provided sufficient evidence to warrant removal of Delaney
    as Individual Trustee.
    Order affirmed.
    -5-
    J-A20043-14
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 8/28/2014
    -6-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 3591 EDA 2013

Filed Date: 8/28/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014