Opinion
J-A22019-16 No. 13 MDA 2016
10-21-2016
IN THE ESTATE OF: ELIZABETH W. WINSTANLEY, AN INCAPICITATED PERSON APPEAL OF: DAVID WINSTANLEY AND ELIZABETH A. WINSTANLEY
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered December 11, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 1202 of 2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.
Appellants, David Winstanley and Elizabeth Winstanley, appeal from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County declaring their mother, Elizabeth W. Winstanley, an incapacitated person. Appellants argue that the court erred by finding clear and convincing evidence that Winstanley was a totally incapacitated person. We affirm.
The orphans' court accurately summarized the history of the case. See Orphans' Court Opinion, dated 3/4/16, 1-19. Therefore, a detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary. "Our standard of review is well-settled in cases involving [] an [O]rphans' [C]ourt decision." In re Estate of Cherwinski , 856 A.2d 165, 167 (Pa. Super. 2004). As we have explained:
The findings of a judge of the [O]rphans' [C]ourt division, sitting without a jury, must be accorded the same weight and effect as the verdict of a jury, and will not be reversed by an appellate court in the absence of an abuse of discretion or a lack of evidentiary support. This rule is particularly applicable to findings of fact which are predicated upon the credibility of the witnesses, whom the judge has had the opportunity to hear and observe, and upon the weight given to their testimony. In reviewing the Orphans' Court's findings, our task is to ensure that the record is free from legal error and to determine if the Orphans' Court's findings are supported by competent and adequate evidence and are not predicated upon capricious disbelief of competent and credible evidence. However, we are not limited when we review the legal conclusions that Orphans' Court has derived from those facts.Id. (quoting In re Estate of Schultheis , 747 A.2d 918, 922 (Pa. Super. 2000)).
On appeal, Appellants have averred that the trial court failed to weigh the need for guardianship against Winstanley's support system, and that there was not clear and convincing evidence to support a finding of incapacity. The orphans' court, in its March 4, 2016 opinion, has aptly reviewed Appellants' claims and disposed of both of these arguments on the merits. We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the relevant law, the certified record, and the well-written opinion of the Honorable Jay J. Hoberg. We have determined that the orphans' court's opinion comprehensively disposes of Appellants' issues on appeal, with appropriate references to the record and without legal error. Therefore, we will affirm based on this opinion. See Orphans' Court Opinion, dated 3/4/16.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/21/2016
Image materials not available for display.