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.

1 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 as sets. 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 fro wn upon a party’s failure to conform to the rules of appellate

procedure, we will not quash or dismiss this appe a l.J

- A29009

- 21

- 2

-

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 determin ations 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 brief s of the parties, the

applicable law, and the thorough opinion authored by the Honorable Michael

E. McCarthy of the Orphans’ C ourt Division of the C ourt of Common Pleas ofJ

- A29009

- 21

- 3

-

Allegheny County, dated July 22, 2021. 2 We conclude that Judge McCarthy ’s

well

- rea soned 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

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 On A ugust 3 1 , 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.Circulated 11/08/2021 01:44 PM