J-A17004-24 

 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 

ESTATE OF GRETCHEN VANTASSEL, 

DECEASED 

APPEAL OF: T. SCOTT SANDERS 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 PENNSYLVANIA 

 No. 80 EDA 2024 

Appeal from the Order Entered December 14, 2023 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): 0556-2023-O 

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J. 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED JULY 16, 2024

 T. Scott Sanders appeals from the December 14, 2023 order entered 

following argument concerning the extent to which representatives of the 

Estate of Gretchen Vantassel, deceased, (“the Estate”) may access Appellant’s 

residence to remove the decedent’s property. We vacate the order and 

remand for further proceedings. 

Gretchen Vantassel died on May 6, 2023, intestate, while residing in 

Appellant’s Chester County home, where she had lived for approximately 

seven years. On August 30, 2023, the Estate filed a “Petition to compel 

Release of Estate Property” seeking to access Appellant’s home to remove 

items that had belonged to the decedent. During a hearing on October 16, 

2023, the parties agreed that the Estate could access the property during the 
J-A17004-24 

- 2 - 

week of November 14, 2023,1 and the proceeding was continued until 

December 7, 2013, to be discontinued if the parties were able to resolve the 

matter amicably. However, following several days of removing items from 

Appellant’s home, a dispute arose between the parties concerning the 

ownership of certain property and Appellant prohibited the Estate from 

removing anything else from the home. 

When the hearing ultimately reconvened on December 13, 2023, the 

trial court heard the parties’ respective arguments and without considering 

evidence regarding ownership of any disputed property, it found that Appellant 

violated the agreement and directed that Appellant permit the Estate access 

to his home between January 3, 2024 to January 17, 2024 from 9:00 am to 

5:00 pm. This timely appeal followed. 

Appellant complied with the order directing him to file a concise 

statement of matters complained of on appeal asserting, inter alia, that he 

disputed the Estate’s ownership of the remaining items and in addressing the 

issues set forth therein, the trial court conceded, “It is apparent . . . that 

Appellant no longer wishes to honor the agreement between the parties . . . 

[and] respectfully, asks that this matter be remanded so that testimony can 

be taken in regards to the issues raised” in the Rule 1925(b) statement. See

Trial Court Opinion, 3/4/24, at 4 (pagination provided). Insofar as the trial 

____________________________________________ 

1

 The parties dispute the terms of the October 16, 2023 stipulation. While the 

court apparently memorialized the agreement in open court, the notes of 

testimony from that hearing are not included in the certified record. 
J-A17004-24 

- 3 - 

court granted relief without addressing the parties’ dispute over the ownership 

of the remaining property that the Estate seeks to remove from Appellant’s 

home, we agree that an evidentiary record is required. Hence, we vacate the 

order and remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing to establish ownership 

of the disputed property. 

Order vacated. Matter remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction 

relinquished. 

Date: 7/16/2024