In the Matter of: Estate of: W.K.B.
This text of In the Matter of: Estate of: W.K.B. (In the Matter of: Estate of: W.K.B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S12003-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
IN THE MATTER OF: ESTATE OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF W.K.B. : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: W.K.B. : : : : : No. 1459 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 16, 2022, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Orphans' Court at No(s): 21-22-0528.
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: JULY 17, 2023
W.K.B. appeals from the decree entered adjudicating her totally
incapacitated as to her ability to manage her finances and partially
incapacitated as to her ability to manage her person and appointing a guardian
under the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code.1 Upon review, we affirm
based on the orphans’ court’s opinion.
The orphans’ court detailed the facts and procedural history of this case
in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Briefly, W.K.B.’s sister, Susan M. Allardice, filed
a petition for adjudication of incapacity and appointment of a guardian of
W.K.B.’s person and estate. At the time of the petition, W.K.B. was 67 years ____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 See 20 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5501-5555 (Chapter 55, “Incapacitated Persons”). J-S12003-23
old. Allardice alleged that W.K.B. was born with Cerebral Palsy, suffered from
depression and high blood pressure, and had psychotic episodes. Additionally,
she claimed that W.K.B. was unable to: take her medication as prescribed,
observe personal boundaries or conduct herself in a socially acceptable
manner due to poor impulse control, make logical or reasonable decisions
causing her to be easily swayed by others, or live on her own. Allardice further
claimed that W.K.B. could not budget or manage her finances and live within
her means and was susceptible to scams and financial manipulation. The
orphans’ court issued a citation and scheduled a hearing.
At the hearing, the orphans’ court heard testimony from a
neuropsychologist, the residential living administrator of W.K.B.’s current
residential facility, W.K.B.’s guardian ad litem, and Allardice. The court also
heard testimony from representatives of W.K.B’s investment bank and
representative payee, another sister, and W.K.B. herself. Additionally, the
court received a number of exhibits from both parties. After the hearing, the
orphans’ court adjudicated W.K.B. incapacitated and appointed Keystone
Guardianship Services as a plenary guardian of her estate and limited
guardian of her person.
W.K.B. filed this timely appeal. W.K.B. and the trial court complied with
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
On appeal, W.K.B. raises a single issue for our review:
Did the orphans' court err in adjudicating W.K.B. as an incapacitated person and appointing a guardian on her behalf where W.K.B. was competent to arrange her own support system
-2- J-S12003-23
for the wellbeing of her person and estate, had arranged her own support system, and said support system was an appropriate and less restrictive alternative than the appointment of a guardian?
W.K.B.’s Brief at 11.
On appeal, W.K.B. argues that the orphans’ court erred in adjudicating
her as an incapacitated person and appointing a guardian. Specifically, W.K.B.
argues that she was competent to arrange her own support system for her
person and estate, which she had been doing. According to W.K.B., there
were no real problems with her support system, but instead, the court
speculated at to issues that could arise. W.K.B. maintains that her support
system worked fine and was a less restrictive alternative than appointing a
guardian. W.K.B.’s Brief at 22, 24-25.
Our standard of review is well-settled in cases involving an orphans'
court decision. In re Estate of Cherwinski, 856 A.2d 165, 167 (Pa. Super.
2004). “The findings of a judge of the orphans’ court 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.” In re Jackson, 174 A.3d 14, 23
(Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). “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.” Id. (citation omitted). This Court's “task is
to ensure that the record is free from legal error and to determine if the
[o]rphans’ [c]ourt's findings are supported by competent and adequate
-3- J-S12003-23
evidence and are not predicated upon capricious disbelief of competent and
credible evidence.” Id. (citation omitted)
Consequently, “[o]ur review of the trial court's determination in a
competency case is based on an abuse of discretion standard, recognizing, of
course, that the trial court had the opportunity to observe all of the witnesses,
including, as here, the alleged[] incapacitated person.” In re Hyman, 811
A.2d 605, 608 (Pa. Super. 2002). “An abuse of discretion exists when the
trial court has rendered a judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary,
or capricious, has failed to apply the law, or was motivated by partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill will.” Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah, 756 A.2d
1116, 1123 (Pa. 2000). Notably, for an appellant to establish an abuse of
discretion, it “is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might
have reached a different conclusion under the same factual situation.”
Fancsali v. Univ. Health Ctr. of Pittsburgh, 761 A.2d 1159, 1162 (Pa.
2000).
Here, the orphans’ court addressed the arguments W.K.B. made on
appeal with reference to the relevant evidence. The court’s Rule 1925(a)
opinion thoroughly set forth the reasons for its decision.
Upon review, we discern no legal errors in the orphans’ court’s analysis.
Further, we find no abuse of discretion. The courts factual findings and
credibility determinations are fully supported by the record. Contrary to
W.K.B.’s request on appeal, we cannot re-evaluate the evidence presented to
the orphans’ court and substitute our judgment for that of the orphans’ court.
-4- J-S12003-23
As such, we adopt the orphans’ court’s opinion as our own in affirming the
decree adjudicating W.K.B. incapacitated and appointing Keystone Guardian
Services as her guardian. See Orphans’ Court’s Opinion, 12/6/22, at 3-11,
13 (setting forth the court’s factual basis for its decision and finding that there
was clear and convincing evidence to adjudicate W.K.B incapacitated and
appoint a plenary guardian of her estate and limited guardian of her person);
at 13-14 (explaining that the testimony of the expert and professionals was
credible and demonstrated that WKB has medical issues and numerous
cognitive difficulties, some of which are severe, that affect her ability to make
good choices as to her person and finances such as taking medication as
required, driving against medical advice thereby endangering herself and
others, making large and frivolous purchases and spending beyond her
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Matter of: Estate of: W.K.B., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-estate-of-wkb-pasuperct-2023.