Estate of James B. Karn (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A29009-21 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: ESTATE OF JAMES B. KARN APPEAL OF: JAMES L. KARN : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 647 WDA 2021 Appeal from the Decree Entered May 17, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): 1566 of 2010 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: November 18, 2021 James L. Karn (Appellant) appeals pro se from the decree entered on May 17, 2021, that confirmed the account for the Estate of James B. Karn (Decedent) and directed the distribution of personalty and real estate in the hands of the Accountant, who was appointed Administrator DBN CTA of the Estate. After review, we affirm.1 ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. This Court’s docket reveals that Appellant filed this appeal on June 8, 2021, from the May 17, 2021 decree issued by the trial court confirming the estate account and directing distribution of the assets. On July 23, 2021, this Court issued a rule to show cause in response to Appellant’s filing of a “Brief of Appellant” rather than a notice of appeal as prescribed by Pa.R.A.P. 904(a). The orphans’ court had docketed the “Brief” as a notice of appeal. Appellant filed a pro se response to the rule to show cause and although this Court discharged the rule to show cause, the parties were notified that this issue could be revisited by this panel when determining the merits of the appeal. Although we frown upon a party’s failure to conform to the rules of appellate procedure, we will not quash or dismiss this appeal. 1 J-A29009-21 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, … 758 A.2d 1200 ([Pa.] 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, … 847 A.2d 1287 ([Pa.] 2003). In re Fiedler, 132 A.3d 1010, 1018 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 206-207 (Pa. Super. 2012)). Appellant raises the following two issues for our review: 1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt abuse its discretion by awarding the estate funds to a beneficiary before the debts were paid? 2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err when it removed … Appellant as executor of the deceased’s estate? Appellant’s brief at 4. We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the thorough opinion authored by the Honorable Michael E. McCarthy of the Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of -2- J-A29009-21 Allegheny County, dated July 22, 2021.2 We conclude that Judge McCarthy’s well-reasoned opinion appropriately disposes of the issues and accompanying arguments presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt Judge McCarthy’s opinion as our own and affirm the decree from which Appellant appealed. Decree affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 11/18/2021 ____________________________________________ On August 31, 2021, the orphans’ court issued a supplemental opinion to correct the omission of the word “not” in the second sentence of the last paragraph on page 6 of its original opinion. 2 -3- Circulated 11/08/2021 01:44 PM
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.
