In Re: Estate of Frey, M., Jr. ( 2021 )

J-S14001-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ESTATE OF MALCOLM R. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
FREY, JR. : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: BRUCE M. FREY, :
ADMINISTRATOR : No. 1533 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered November 4, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Orphans' Court at
No(s): 4095-0491
BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JUNE 25, 2021
Bruce M. Frey appeals from the order that removed him as Administrator
CTA1 of the estate of his father, Malcolm R. Frey, Jr. We affirm.
The orphans’ court offered the following summary of the underlying
history:
This case arises out of an estate created in 1995 that
remains pending today. Malcolm Frey (“Decedent”) passed away
on February 11, 1995 and on March 16, 1995 his son Bruce Frey
(“Bruce”) was appointed Administrator CTA. Decedent’s estate
(“Estate”) lists a property at 320 Highland Avenue, Kingston
Township, Pennsylvania (“Property”) as its primary asset.
Between 1995 and the present time the Estate never settled. That
is not to say it was inactive, for Bruce indisputably rented the
Property, resided there for a time, and spent an undetermined
value repairing and improving it. Bruce kept little record of his
income and expenses pertaining to the Property.
____________________________________________
1 An administrator CTA, or cum testamento annexo, is one “appointed by the
court to carry out the provisions of a will when the testator has named no
executor, or the executors named refuse, are incompetent to act, or have died
before performing their duties and no qualified successor has been named.”
ADMINISTRATOR, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
J-S14001-21
The docket itself remained inactive for nearly a quarter
century. The first effort to progress the Estate toward a resolution
did not occur until April 18, 2019 when Amy Frey (“Amy”),
daughter of Decedent and sister of Bruce, filed a petition to
remove Bruce as administrator of the estate. Judge Richard M.
Hughes, III of the Luzerne County Orphans Court (“[orphans’]
court”) set a hearing date of May 22, 2019. The hearing was
thereafter continued pending Bruce’s completion of an Estate
accounting, which he indeed filed on September 12, 2019. Amy
subsequently filed a petition for a hearing on the accounting on
January 6, 2020. Following a continuance, the [orphans’] court
scheduled a hearing on March 10, 2020.
An order dated June 22, 2020 sustained Amy’s preliminary
objections to the accounting, directed Bruce to file an amended
accounting within sixty days, and scheduled a hearing on the
earlier petition to remove Bruce as administrator for September
8, 2020. The court specifically also noted that it found credible
the testimony of former Property renters Michael Hoprich and Jan
Villarante. Bruce filed an amended accounting on August 21, 2020
noting the lack of remaining documentation concerning rental
income and most expenses. The [orphans’] court issued an order
on November 4, 2020 removing Bruce Frey as administrator CTA
and allowing any heir of the Decedent to petition for appointment
as administrator of the estate.
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 2/10/21, at 1-2 (footnote and unnecessary
capitalization omitted).
Bruce filed a timely notice of appeal,2 and both he and the orphans’
court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Bruce presents the following questions
for our consideration:
____________________________________________
2 The interlocutory order was immediately appealable as of right pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(5) (“An appeal may be taken as of right from the following
orders of the Orphans’ Court Division: . . . An order determining the status of
fiduciaries, beneficiaries, or creditors in an estate, trust, or guardianship[.]”).
-2-
J-S14001-21
I. Did the [orphans’] court abuse its discretion in failing to
apply the doctrine of laches where knowledgeable heirs delayed
in demanding an accounting for twenty-five (25) years?
II. Did the [orphans’] court abuse its discretion in dismissing
[Bruce] for his failure to complete the administration of the estate
where there were no assets to administer or distribute on the date
of death?
Bruce’s brief at 1 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
We begin with an examination of the applicable legal principles. The
removal of an estate fiduciary is left to the discretion of the orphans’ court,
and we may not alter its determination absent an abuse of that discretion.
See, e.g., In re Estate of Andrews, 92 A.3d 1226, 1230 (Pa.Super. 2014).
“An abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment. Rather, it involves
bias, partiality, prejudice, ill-will, or misapplication of law.” In re Estate of
Tigue, 926 A.2d 453, 456-57 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citations omitted).
This Court has observed that “[r]emoval of estate executors . . . is a
drastic action that should only be taken when it is evident that the estate is
actually endangered and that court intervention is necessary in order to
prevent further waste and/or mismanagement of the estate assets.” Matter
of Estate of Frey,3 693 A.2d 1349, 1352 (Pa.Super. 1997). “This is especially
____________________________________________
3 Apparently, the Frey family involved in the instant appeal is not related to
the Frey in this Court’s prior decision. See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 2/10/21,
at 5.
-3-
J-S14001-21
true in situations in which a testator has selected those persons he or she
wishes to serve as executors.”4
The grounds for removal of a personal representative are
delineated in 20 Pa.C.S. § 3182. That statute allows the orphans’
court to replace a personal representative when he or she “is
wasting or mismanaging the estate, is or is likely to become
insolvent, or has failed to perform any duty imposed by law” as
well as “when, for any other reason, the interests of the estate
are likely to be jeopardized by his continuance in office.” 20
Pa.C.S. § 3182(1), (5).
Id. at 1230.
“An executor is required to exercise the same degree of judgment that
a reasonable person would exercise in the management of his own estate.
This duty includes the responsibility to distribute the estate promptly.” In re
McCrea's Estate, 380 A.2d 773, 775-76 (Pa. 1977) (citations omitted). See
also In re Padezanin, 937 A.2d 475, 85 (Pa.Super. 2007) (indicating that
an executor has the duty “to preserve and protect the property for distribution
to the proper persons within a reasonable time”) (cleaned up).
After a thorough review of the pertinent law, the parties’ briefs, and the
certified record, we discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the orphans’
court as to the issues raised in this appeal, and we affirm the order removing
Bruce as Administrator CTA on the basis of the cogent and well-reasoned
____________________________________________
4 Bruce, as an administrator CTA, necessarily was not Decedent’s chosen
estate representative. Hence, his removal is not subject to this heightened
reluctance.
-4-
J-S14001-21
opinion that the Honorable Richard M. Hughes, III, entered on February 10,
2021.
Specifically, Judge Hughes observed that Bruce admitted that, in
twenty-five years as the estate fiduciary, he did nothing to perform his duty
to settle Decedent’s estate. See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 2/10/21, at 6 (citing
N.T., 3/10/20, at 25-26). Rather, Bruce took his siblings’ renunciations of
their right to be Administrator of the Estate as a renunciation of any right to
the Property itself, and thereafter proceeded to treat it as his own,
commingling funds from rental income and failing to keep records of money
spent on improvements. Id. at 7-9. Based upon the evidence in the certified
record, Judge Hughes reasonably concluded that “Bruce’s twenty-five year
term as Administrator CTA of the Estate has been long-delayed, abysmally
mismanaged, and his continued term jeopardizes the Estate and any possible
future conclusion.” Id. at 10.
Finally, we observe that, in his laches argument, Bruce asserts that any
distribution of the estate “will be subject to set-offs in favor of Bruce,” and
that his siblings are precluded by laches from challenging the lack of
documentary evidence available at this juncture to prove the amounts that he
spent on Property. See Bruce’s brief at 7. However, those arguments speak
not to the issue of his removal as administrator, but to the ultimate
distribution and settlement of the Estate, issues that are not before us in this
interlocutory appeal.
-5-
J-S14001-21
Accordingly, Bruce has failed to establish that the orphans’ court
rendered a decision based upon “bias, partiality, prejudice, ill-will, or
misapplication of law.” In re Estate of Tigue, supra at 456-57. As such,
we discern no abuse of discretion warranting relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 06/25/2021
-6-
Circulated 05/25/2021 01:32 PM
IN RE: :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF LUZERNE COUNTY
ESTATE OF MALCOLM FREY, JR.,
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
Deceased
NO. 4095-0491
OPINION ISSUED PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P. 1925(a) U. 9RHE
AEM !='T+tM A
°r= - !!C.
.Fasts and Procedural Background
This case arises out of an estate created in 1995 that remains pending today. Malcolm
Frey ("Decedent") passed away on February 11, 1995 and on March 16, 1995 his son Bruce Frey
("Bruce") was appointed Administrator CIA. Decedent's estate ("Estate") lists aproperty at 320
Highland Avenue, Kingston Township, Pennsylvania {"Property"} as its primary asset. Between
1995 and the present time the Estate never settled. That is not to say it was inactive, for Bruce
indisputably rented the Property, resided there for atime, and spent an undetermined value
repairing and improving it. Bruce kept little record of his income and expenses pertaining to the
Property.
The docket itself remained inactive for nearly aquarter century. The first effort to
progress the Estate toward a.resolution did-not occur until April 18, 2019 when Amy Frey
("Amy"), daughter of Decedent and sister of Bruce filed aPetition to Remove Bruce as
Administrator of the Estate.' Judge Richard M. Hughes, III of the Luzexne County Orphans
Court ("Trial Court") set ahearing date of May 22, 2019. The hearing was thereafter continued
pending Bruce's completion of an Estate accounting, which he indeed filed on September 12,
2019. Amy subsequently filed aPetition for ahearing on the accounting on January 6, 2020.
Following acontinuance, the Trial Court scheduled ahearing on March 10, 2020.
An Order dated June 22, 2020 sustained Amy's preliminary objections to the accounting,
directed Bruce to file an amended accounting within sixty days, and scheduled ahearing on the
earlier Petition to Remove Bruce as Administrator for September 8, 2020. The Court specifically
also noted that it found credible the testimony of former Property renters Michael Hoprich and
Jan Villarante. Bruce filed an amended accounting on August 21, 2020 noting the lack of
remaining documentation concerning rental income and most expenses. The Trial Court issued
an Order on November 4, 2020 removing Bruce Frey as Administrator CTA and allowing any
heir of the Decedent to petition for appointment as Administrator of the Estate.
Bruce appealed the Trial Court's November 4, 2020 Order to the Pennsylvania Superior
Court on December 1, 2020. On December 7, 2020 the Trial Court directed Bruce to file a
concise statement of errors on appeal ("Concise Statement of Errors") within thirty days. Bruce
filed the ordered Concise Statement of Errors on January 5, 2021.
Plaintiff's Concise Statement of Errors are as follows:
1. Latches or Unreasonable Delay: The current Administrator was appointed in 1995 with
full knowledge and approval of his siblings. After twenty-five (25) years have passed the
beneficiaries now want an accounting and distribution of what they believe to be their
beneficial share. Since his appointment, the Administrator has substantially increased the
value of the home with their full knowledge and they now request adistribution of his
efforts.
2. Estoppel: With the full knowledge of the heirs, the Administrator has greatly improved
the value of the home by putting on adeck, shed, driveway, roof, kitchen bathroom, etc.
For twenty-five (25) years no heir requested an accounting, and to reconstruct and
2
account for the monies expended to increase the value is impossible. To allow the heirs to
now receive the benefit of his efforts is unreasonable.
3. The only asset arguably for distribution was the decedent's home which was included in
the Inheritance Tax Return; that Return showed no net Estate. The debt against that asset
remained solely in the name of the Administrator, therefore, creating no net asset to
administer or to distribute. No objection was ever filed to the Inheritance Tax which was
delivered, again, twenty-five (25) years ago. To this end the filing of aFirst and Final
Account for the distribution of no assets would have been meaningless and does not
amount to an error or which the Administrator should have been dismissed.
4. This matter could have been resolved twenty-five (25) years ago by conveyance of the
asset to the creditor/Administrator. Unfortunately, the Mortgagee to whom the
Administrator owed the balance required payment in full of the debt before any
conveyance, or even, any rental was allowed. Since the creditor/Administrator did not
have the capability of refinancing the home stayed in the name of the Estate.
II. Legal Discussion
The General rule under Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) entitled "Opinion in Support of Order" states:
Except as otherwise prescribed by this rule, upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the judge
who entered the order giving rise to the notice of appeal, if the reasons for the order do not
already appear of record, shall within the period set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 1931(a)(1) file of
record at least abrief opinion of the reasons for the order, or for the rulings or other errors
complained of, or shall specify in writing the place in the record where such reasons may
be found.
Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b),
If the judge entering the order giving rise to the notice of appeal ("judge") desires
clarification of the errors complained of on appeal, the judge may enter an order directing
the appellant to file of record in the trial court and serve on the judge aconcise statement
of errors complained of on appeal ("Statement").
3
Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) further states: "[tjhe Statement shall concisely identify each
error that the appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raisedfor
the judge."
Bruce focuses much of this Concise Statement of Errors on the allegedly inequitable fact
of his various expenses done that increased the value of the estate and his siblings' lack of
prosecution in the matter for twenty-five years. That the siblings did fail to pursue the action for
so long does at least raise aquestion. Nonetheless, Bruce, not his siblings, accepted the duties of
an Administrator and completion of the Estate was his responsibility, not his siblings'
responsibility. An executor's duty includes "the responsibility to distribute the estate promptly."
In re McCrea's Estate, 380 A.2d 773, 775-776 (Pa. 1977). "An executor's duty is to take custody
of the estate and to administer it so as to preserve and protect the property for distribution to the
proper persons within areasonable time." Matter ofEstate of Campbell, 692 A.2d 1098, 1101
(Pa. Super. 1997). An administrator c.t.a wields the same powers as an executor. Sears v.
Scranton Trust Company, 77 A. 423, 426 (Pa. 1910). Bruce's attempt to place the burden on his
siblings does not absolve his own duties. That his delay in concluding the Estate led to an alleged
increase in value beyond insolvency is not their fault either. Bruce's custody of the estate,
however delayed, may truly have benefitted the Estate's valuation -- the positive effects of
Bruce's custody are not the reasons the Trial Court removed Bruce as Administrator CTA.
The Trial Court removed Bruce as Administrator CTA of the Estate for the simple fact of
his lengthy and admitted failure to make even cursory efforts at settling the Estate. In the process
of his inaction, Bruce engaged in self-dealing and wholly neglected to make an accounting of his
activities to the point where acomplete proper accounting of this Estate may never be possible.
When removing Bruce Frey as Administrator CTA the Trial Court relied upon its statutory
4
authority and abody of case law, most importantly astrikingly similar matter coincidentally
known as the Matter of Estate ofFrey. 2
Preventing continued mismanagement of this Estate and protecting its fixture interest
through the termination of its jeopardized status quo absolutely necessitated the Trial Court's
discretionary exercise of removal. Statutorily, "[t]he court shall have exclusive power to remove
apersonal representative when he: (1) is wasting or mismanaging the estate, is or is likely to
become insolvent, or has failed to perfonti any duty imposed by law; or ... (5) when, for any
other reason, the interests of the estate are likely to be jeopardized by his continuance in office."
20 Pa. C.S.A. §3182. Despite labeling removal a"drastic action," the Frey Court recognizes its
factual necessity reflected in the statute. Matter ofEstate of Frey, 693 A.2d 1349, 13 52 (Pa.
Super. 1997). Such discretion to remove lies soundly with the trial court and will not be
disturbed absent an abuse. In re Estate ofAndrews, 92 A.3d 1226, 1230 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(quoting In re Estate of Mumma, 41 A.3d 41, 49 (Pa. Super. 2012)). The factual scenario of the
present matter far exceeds that in the earlier Frey matter in both duration and depth.
. The Trial Court finds the earlier Frey matter instructive. In that case, upon the death of
John W. Frey on November 25, 1991 his wife Darlien and his son Michael were named co-
executors of the estate. Prior to the final accounting filed two years later, several account
balances were transferred into Darlien's name and her life estate interest in the residence was
transformed into afee simple interest, all without court approval. Matter of Estate of Frey, 693
A.2d 1350-51 (Pa. Super. 1997). Meanwhile, afew months after John Frey's passing his sons
Michael and Richard obtained an appraisal of one estate home for $44,500, engaged in repairs
and improvements to the home, and promptly sold it to themselves for the same value -$44,500
2 Matter of Estate of Frey, 693, A.2d 13-9 (Pa. Super. 1997).
5
—despite it being reappraised at the time for $75,000 3 Again, this sale occurred without court
approval. Id.,at 1351. Following objections to the accounting by other Frey children and acourt-
ordered audit, interspersed with the co-executors' refusal to comply with court orders, the court
removed Michael and Darlien as co-executors.and surcharged them $30,500. Id., at 1351-52. The
Superior Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because "[a]mple evidence
was produced which demonstrated that, in the over four years of his tenure, Michael did not take
even threshold steps which are necessary to ensure the effective administration of an estate." Id.,
at 1352.
In the present Frey matter, the wholesale voiding of Bruce's responsibility to the Estate
occurred far longer and to agreater extent than in the earlier Frey matter. Perhaps no other
statement better summarizes the rudderless nature of this Estate than the very words of Bruce.
The Administrator CTA, appointed to that position aquarter-century ago, openly admitted "I
have never done anything to settle this Estate[.]" Transcript, p. 25-26. That Bruce further
explained he believed the Estate settled at the time of his father's passing may in fact be true but
does not absolve the point that the Estate remains open after so many years. Moreover, Bruce's
credibility is not altogether consistent: he testified during the hearing that he lived in both
Kingston (Pennsylvania) and Florida, while later unequivocally testifying that he "never lived in
Kingston." Transcript, p. 22, 45.
The contention in this matter instead largely stems from adisputed legal interpretation
and aresultant lack of accounting rather than afactual argument. The dispute creating this matter
ultimately originated at the funeral of the siblings' father. Bruce obtained the signature of all his
siblings, except Stephen, when he was appointed Administrator CTA in 1995. Transcript, p. 25-
Michael and Darlien, as co-executors, officially sold the home to Michael and Richard. Alater third appraisal
valued the home at $90,000. Frey at 1351.
6
26. Amy clarifies that the paperwork consisted of renunciations. Transcript, p. 66. Bruce
thereafter offered his siblings the Property but none of them.wished to take it, resulting in Bruce
paying each of his siblings $1,000. 4Transcript, p. 21. At that point Bruce believed he owned the
Property, aposition he continues to hold. Transcript, p. 21, 47. Amy, believing she only signed a
renunciation of her right to become the Administrator, denies that she or her siblings ever signed
over their rights to the Property. Transcript, p. 61. What Bruce believes to be his siblings'
renunciation to the Property was in fact their effective consent to his appointment as
Administrator CTA. No evidence came before the Trial Court to show that Bruce's alleged
$1,000 payment to his siblings constituted consideration for sole right to the Property.
Nonetheless, believing himself to own sole possession to the Property, Bruce embarked
on along period of renting the home marked with co-mingling of funds and meager record
keeping. Jan Villarante testified that she rented the Property from 1996 until 2001 for $1,000 per
month. Transcript, p. 15. Mark Hopprich testified that he rented the Property from November
2011 to January 2016 for $900 per month. Transcript, p. 9, 10. Although Bruce Frey cannot
specifically recall these renters, he does not deny them either. 5Transcript, p. 20. A personal
representative "shall collect the rents and income from each asset in his possession until it is sold
or distributed[.]" 20 Pa. C.S.A. §3311. Both Jan Villarante and Michael Hopprich testified they
made the rental checks to Bruce. Transcript, p. 10,16,18. Michael Hopprich added that he
mailed the checks to BMF Media. Transcript, p. 10. Bruce confirmed rental checks were sent to
BMF Media, which he identifies as his business. Transcript, p. 20, 24, 45-46. He further admits
that the incoming rental payments were not accounted and were funneled into BMF- Media.
4 Amy Kozar disputes that she ever even received the alleged $1,000'payment. Transcript, p. 66-67.
5 There also seems to be at least one other renter whose identity could not be ascertained and who.did not testify.
Transcript, p. 69-70.
7
Transcript, p. 20-21, 24. Together, the two witnesses paid Bruce via BMF Media nearly
$114,000. Transcript, p. 10, 17. Throughout the time of Jan Villarante and Michael Hopprich
renting the Property, and apparently during Bruce's residence at the Property that began at least
five years ago, Amy has never shared in the rental income. Transcript, p. 23, 63.
The Court finds Bruce's funneling of assets generated from the Estate into his personal
company's account especially problematic. Such co-mingling will almost assuredly render any
future accurate accounting of the Estate impossible. "[A]n executor must keep separate estate
accounts and thorough records. Instead, Michael commingled his funds with estate funds and
kept such haphazard records that it is unclear whether an exact account can ever be
forthcoming." Matter of Estate of Frey, 693 A.2d 1349, 1353 (Pa. Super. 1997).'Courts have
indeed recognized the dangers of such co-mingling of funds for well more than acentury. In
1900 the Superior Court affirmed the removal of an administratrix who "deposited money of the
estate in her name, and has not kept proper and intelligible accounts in regards to the affairs of
the estate." In re Perrett's Estate, 14 Pa. Super. 611, 615 (Pa. Super. 1900). 6The Frey Court
labeled that similar sale of property to the co-executor "self-dealing." Matter ofEstate of Frey,
693 A.2d 1349,1353 (Pa. Super. 1997). In that case, the co-executor and his brother spent
monies repairing and improving the home and ultimately reaped the benefit because of poor
record keeping that the court describes as "abysmal." Id.Abysmal would generously characterize the record-keeping in the present matter.
Operating under the posited presumption that he owned the Property, aposition that again does
not obviate the fact of his inaction and self-dealing, Bruce spent considerable sums on the
5 The Perrett Court further opined that the appellant's own testimony "shows that she has commingled the trust
funds with her own and that her accounts, (while perhaps intelligible to herself), are not such accounts as should
be kept by one having the custody of trust funds." In re Perrett's Estate, 14 Pa, Super. 611, 616 (Pa. Super, 1900).
8
Property. He testified to numerous repairs, including: the roof, the bathroom, acar port, filling
the lawn, foundation work, painting, enlarging the driveway, replacing the hot water heater,
repairing the deck, redoing the carpet and installing vinyl in the-Icitchen, bathroom and laundry.
Transcript, p. 35-39. Bruce estimates the repairs and improvements cost him $23,300 and yet he
claims to lack all but the most recent receipts, none of which were offered to the Court.
Transcript, p. 27, 43. None of his siblings challenge the work except brother Gary Frey l"Gary")
who worked on the roof and disputes the value of the payment he received. Transcript, p. 36, 50.
Simultaneously, the siblings barely contributed to the Estate debts and maintenance_ The
siblings did not pay any costs toward the Property except the tax bill immediately prior to filing
suit. Transcript, p. 47, 52. Bruce argues, without opposition, that none of the other siblings paid
the estate debts. Transcript, p. 33-34. Most important to Bruce though is the fact that he obtained
the Farmers Home Administration ("FHA") loan with his parents as co-signers, leaving him on
the hook for $72,000 at 11% interest once his parents passed away. Transcript, p. 31-32. Bruce
posits that the monies he received in rent enabled him to pay the loan interest and now the
Property's mortgage is reduced to only $15,000. Transcript, p. 34. There is no evidence that the
siblings helped pay down the mortgage, and, in fact, Gary plainly asserted he would not
reimburse Bruce the costs of mortgage, interest, taxes and insurance that he paid. Transcript, p.
56.
While it should be noted that Bruce had adirect interest in paying down the mortgage
attached to his name, it is also notable that he paid down asignificant liability upon an Estate
asset, perhaps unwittingly. Yet, at the same time, he paid down the Estate liability, at least in
part, with income generated from the Estate. Thus, it can be argued he used Estate generated
assets to benefit himself and reimbursement to Bruce personally would effectively double dip.
9
Moreover,. it. is very possible that Bruce incurred thousands of dollars in repair and improvement
costs. A full and proper accounting would consider those costs. Unfortunately for Bruce, his
atrocious record keeping effectively precludes aproper accounting that would at least support his
argument for reimbursement. The earlier Frey Court found no abuse of discretion due to Michael
acting "in flagrant disregard for anumber of procedural mandates that are intended to ensure the
effective management of an estate" resulting in "a pattern, of mismanagement ... which was not
likely to be rectified absent Michael's removal." Matter of Estate ofFrey, 693 A.2d 1349, 1353
(Pa. Super. 1997). The same can be said of the present case. Bruce's twenty-five year term as
Administrator CTA of the Estate has been long-delayed, abysmally mismanaged, and his
continued term jeopardizes the Estate and any possible future conclusion.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this Court ruled in favor of Amy Frey and against Bruce Frey,
and removed Bruce Frey as Administrator CTA of the Estate o£ Malcom Frey, Jr.
The Register of Wills is directed to enter this Opinion of Record, transmit the record to
the Prothonotary of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. and to mail acopy of this Order to each
party's attorney of record, or if unrepresented, to each party, pursuant to.Pa.RC.P. 236.
COMPLIANCE IS HEREWITH DIRECTED.
.BY THE COURT:
10