Estate of Crowder, C., Appeal of Crowder, C. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A20011-22 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ESTATE OF CHARLES CROWDER, III AN INCAPACITATED PERSON : : : : APPEAL OF: CHARLES CROWDER, III : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 323 EDA 2022 Appeal from the Decree Entered December 29, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2020-X1906 ESTATE OF CHARLES CROWDER, III AN INCAPACITATED PERSON : : : : APPEAL OF: CHARLES CROWDER, III : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 327 EDA 2022 Appeal from the Decree Entered December 29, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2020-X1484 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 1, 2022 Charles Crowder, III, (Appellant) appeals from the December 29, 2021 amended final decree entered by the Montgomery County Orphans’ Court that determined that Appellant remained incapacitated.1 The decree also removed ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. The two appeals were consolidated sua sponte by this Court in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 513. See Order, 3/2/22. 1 J-A20011-22 Appellant’s daughter, Tierra Williams, as his healthcare power of attorney, continued Edythe Shapiro’s appointment as the plenary permanent guardian of Appellant’s estate, and appointed Edythe Shapiro the guardian of Appellant’s person, which authorized her to consent to medical treatment for Appellant. After review, we affirm. 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, 206-07 (Pa. Super. 2012)). Appellant raises the following two issues for out review: 1. Whether the trial court erred and otherwise abused its discretion by appointing a Guardian of the Person where the incapacitated person had demonstrated that he was able to -2- J-A20011-22 handle his own affairs and make appropriate decisions for himself and where he had an adequate support system available to assist him if needed? 2. Whether the decision of the Orphans’ Court was against the weight of the evidence? 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 Gail A. Weilheimer of the Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, dated March 8, 2022. We conclude that Judge Weilheimer’s well-reasoned opinion appropriately disposes of the issues and accompanying arguments presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Weilheimer’s opinion as our own and affirm the decree from which Appellant appealed. Decree affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 11/1/2022 -3- Circulated 10/04/2022 10:05 AM
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.
