In Re: Estate of Campbell (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A06012-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 : No. 2246 EDA 2012 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: ELIZABETH HAZEL MURPHY CAMPBELL PENNSYLVANIA : : : : IN RE: ESTATE OF MALCOLM CAMPBELL, DECEASED : : : : APPEAL OF: SCOT CAMPBELL AND KENNETH GROSS, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF MALCOLM CAMPBELL, DECEASED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : IN RE: ESTATE OF MALCOLM CAMPBELL, DECEASED No. 2401 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Order Entered June 27, 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Orphans' Court, No(s). 08-X0648 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., ALLEN, J., and PLATT, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. Filed: April 25, 2013 Appellants, Scot Campbell and Kenneth Gross, Executors of the Estate of Malcolm Campbell, deceased, and Elizabeth Hazel Murphy Campbell, wife of the decedent, appeal from the order entered June 27, 2012, by the Honorable Lois E. Murphy, Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Orphans Court. We affirm. * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 J-A06012-13 For a detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history of this case, we direct the reader to the trial court s memorandum opinion. Orphans Court Opinion, 6/27/12 at 1-8. See Briefly, the decedent, Malcolm Campbell, died testate on February 14, 2008. Appellants, Scot Campbell and Kenneth W. Gross were named co-executors of the estate. Following the First Account of the estate, decedent s wife, Elizabeth Hazel Murphy Campbell filed objections. Subsequently, all claims regarding the estate were settled with the exception of a demand for counsel fees. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Mrs. Campbell attorneys fees and costs pursuant to the terms of an antenuptial agreement, in the amount of $126,800.00. See Orphans Court Opinion, 6/27/12 at 19. These timely cross-appeals followed. On appeal, Appellants Scot Campbell and Kenneth Gross raise the following issues for our review: I. Did the [c]ourt err in holding that the Estate is bound to pay Claimant s counsel fees pursuant to the terms of an agreement between her and the decedent? II. Did the [c]ourt improperly hold that Claimant s legal fees were incurred in an effort to enforce the Antenuptial Agreement? III. Were the legal fees awarded pursuant to a hybrid contingent and hourly fee agreement unreasonable? Appellants Brief, at 4. Additionally, Appellant, Elizabeth Hazel Murphy Campbell, raises the following issues: 2 J-A06012-13 I. Was the [c]ourt correct to grant attorneys fees to a decedent s wife, pursuant to an agreement between the decedent and his wife, where the wife was forced into litigation by the executors of the decedent s estate in order to enforce her rights? II. Did the [c]ourt err in reducing the attorneys fees where the fee agreement at issue was reasonable and where the [c]ourt found it to be reasonable? Appellant s Brief, at 1. Our standard of review is as follows: [a]s to interpretation, enforcement, and remedies, in Pennsylvania, antenuptial agreements are interpreted in accordance with traditional principles of contract law. Moreover, [t]he law of contracts requires contractual terms that are clear and unambiguous to be given effect without reference to matters outside the contract. Estate of Kendall, 982 A.2d 525, 534 (Pa. Super. 2009) (internal citations and quotes omitted). [T]he interpretation of the terms of a contract is a question of law for which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. McMullen v. Kutz, 985 A.2d 769, 775 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted). The general rule within this Commonwealth is that each side is responsible for the payment of its own costs and counsel fees absent bad faith or vexatious conduct. Id. This so-called American Rule holds true unless there is express statutory authorization, a clear agreement of the parties or some other established exception. Id. (citation omitted). The trial court may consider whether the fees claimed to have been incurred are reasonable, and to reduce the fees claimed if appropriate. Id. at 777. 3 J-A06012-13 With our standard of review in mind, and after examining the briefs of the parties, the ruling of the trial court, as well as the applicable law, we find that Judge Murphy s ruling is supported by the record and free of legal error. We further find that the Orphans court ably and methodically addressed Appellants issues raised on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Judge Murphy s thorough and well-written opinion. Opinion, filed 6/27/12. Judgment affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 4 See Orphans Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
