Opinion
J-A23022-19 No. 71 WDA 2019
11-27-2019
IN RE: ESTATE OF JAMES G. KLINGENSMITH, DECEASED APPEAL OF: JOSPEH KLINGENSMITH AND JOHN KLINGENSMITH
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered December 11, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 02-11-04852 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Appellants, John Klingensmith ("John") and Joseph Klingensmith ("Joseph"), co-executors of the Estate of James G. Klingensmith ("James G." or "Decedent"), appeal from the order, dated December 6, 2018 and entered December 11, 2018, that directed Cynthia Klingensmith ("Cynthia"), daughter-in-law of Decedent, to deliver to John and Joseph certain disputed items of jewelry and other items consisting of sports memorabilia that were in Cynthia's possession. After review, we vacate and remand the case with instructions.
Cynthia is the widow of James C. Klingensmith ("James C."), a brother of Appellants, who was initially the executor of Decedent's estate, but passed away in August of 2015.
We begin by setting forth our standard of review.
Our standard of review of the findings of an Orphans' Court is deferential.
When reviewing a decree entered by the Orphans' Court, this Court must determine whether the record is free from legal error and the court's factual findings are supported by the evidence. Because the Orphans' Court sits as the fact-finder, it determines the credibility of the witnesses and, on review, we will not reverse its credibility determinations absent an abuse of that discretion.
However, we are not constrained to give the same deference to any resulting legal conclusions.
In re Fiedler , 132 A.3d 1010, 1018 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting In re Estate of Whitley , 50 A.3d 203, 206-07 (Pa. Super. 2012)).
In re Estate of Harrison , 745 A.2d 676, 678-79 (Pa. Super. 2000), appeal denied, 563 Pa. 646, 758 A.2d 1200 (2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "The Orphans' Court decision will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying the correct principles of law." In re Estate of Luongo , 823 A.2d 942, 951 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 577 Pa. 722, 847 A.2d 1287 (2003).
Appellants raise the following two issues for our review:
1. Did the testimony of Cynthia Klingensmith's independent witnesses establish a prima facie case of an inter vivos gift despite the lack of clear, direct, and convincing evidence of donative intent and delivery of the alleged gifts of any of the property[,] which Judge McCarthy awarded to Cynthia?Appellants' brief at 4.
2. Was Cynthia Klingensmith, whose independent witnesses failed to establish a prima facie case of any inter vivos gift by clear and convincing evidence, entitled to testify despite the bar of the Dead Man's Act?
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the thorough 9-page opinion of the Honorable Michael E. McCarthy of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated March 11, 2019. We conclude that Judge McCarthy's well-reasoned opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Appellants. Accordingly, we adopt his opinion as our own with respect to the issues raised in this appeal.
However, we note that it appears that the court erred in instructing Cynthia to return certain items of undisputed jewelry in its order, as it is evident she is not in possession of this jewelry, except for the cluster ring and diamond stud earrings, which she is allowed to keep. Rather, Vincent Klingensmith testified that he was in possession of this jewelry. See N.T., 7/30-31/18, at 331 (469a). Moreover, Appellants' Exhibit 22 states that "[a]ll jewelry [is] in the possession of Vincent Klingensmith or a gun safe in his house." Therefore, despite our agreement with the trial court's analysis of the issues raised, we are compelled to vacate its order and remand so that the trial court is able to correct its directions as to the distribution of some of the jewelry belonging to the estate.
Order vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/27/2019
Image materials not available for display.