Opinion
No. 3211 EDA 2019
02-19-2021
Kenneth J. SHEPLEY, Appellant v. Gertrude A. RICHARDSON a/k/a Gertrude A. Shepley
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Kenneth J. Shepley (Kenneth) appeals from the order entered on October 8, 2019, that involves the probate of the estate of James F. Shepley (Decedent), Kenneth's father, who died on December 24, 2011. Essentially, Decedent's will provides that his entire estate is to be left to his second wife, Gertrude A. Richardson a/k/a Gertrude A. Shepley (Gertrude). After review, we affirm.
Initially, we note that the parties to this appeal have filed an unfathomable number of motions during the course of this litigation to which this Court has entered numerous orders. The latest concerns Gertrude's motion to strike Kenneth's brief for lack of any legal authority, and her request for counsel fees to cover her attorney's work on filing a response to Kenneth's motion. In fact, neither Gertrude's motion nor Kenneth's response contain any citations to case law. Rather, both parties assert that the other party has not complied with appellate standards in light of the absence of case law cited by them to support their positions. After review, we deny any outstanding motions or requests for counsel fees.
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 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).
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) ).
Kenneth raises the following three issues for our review:
A. Poisoning a testator's mind, by the proponent of a will against a natural heir, is a form of fraud in the inducement, which can invalidate a will. Witness testimony and opposing party statements showed that appellee Gertrude poisoned Decedent James F. Shepley against his sole natural heir[,] Kenneth J. Shepley.... Yet all such evidence was avoided by the trial court. Should the court below have assessed [Kenneth's] poisoning of the mind and related evidence?
B. Even in a civil bench trial, every plaintiff has a right to argue their case based on the final evidence. The court below precluded Kenneth ... from presenting a closing argument, or brief, based on the final evidence, effectively muting his case. Should the trial court have allowed Kenneth ... an opportunity to present his final arguments?
C. Arguments of a party in a lawsuit are for it alone to make, not a trial court. Here, the trial court created its own arguments and analyzed them as if they were appellant's. Had these arguments actually been ... [Kenneth's], there would be no harm. However, they were not even close to his true arguments. Did the court below, by assessing its own arguments instead of [Kenneth's], show prejudice?
Kenneth's brief at 4-5 (answers omitted).
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the thorough, 23-page opinion authored by the Honorable David J. Williamson of the Orphans' Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, dated October 8, 2019. We conclude that Judge Williamson's well-reasoned opinion appropriately disposes of the issues presented by Kenneth and his accompanying arguments, which are essentially attacking the findings and credibility determinations of the court. See Fiedler, supra . Accordingly, we adopt Judge Williamson's opinion as our own and affirm the order from which Kenneth appealed.
On December 4, 2019, the orphans' court issued a statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), indicating that after reviewing Kenneth's concise statement filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), it "determined that the [c]ourt ha[d] adequately addressed these issues [raised by Kenneth] in its Opinion accompanying [the] Order dated October 8, 2019." See 1925(a) Statement. Therefore, the court declined to author an additional opinion.
--------
Order affirmed.
Attachment
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?