Court Opinion

ID: 9909526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 17:09:07.184859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:33.164225
License: Public Domain

J-S28033-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN RE: ESTATE OF MARY H.                     :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  HENDERSON                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: ARNIE STEINBERG                   :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1151 WDA 2022

            Appeal from the Order Entered September 21, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
                          No(s): No. 021604067

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                     FILED: December 13, 2023

       Appellant, Arnie Steinberg, the executor of the estate of Mary H.

Henderson (“Decedent”) appeals from the order entered in the Court of

Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’ Court Division, granting a

charitable organization named beneficiary under the will $104,776.53 against

the estate consistent with the terms of Decedent’s will, and surcharging

Appellant any amount of said order that could not be satisfied by the funds

remaining in the estate. After careful review. We affirm.

       The relevant procedural history and the orphans’ court’s findings of fact

are comprised in the court’s two orders dated April 6, 2022, and September

20, 2022, and are as follows:

       This estate was opened on July 22, 2016, by Arnold Y. Steinberg,
       who is the successor Executor according to the Decedent’s Will
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S28033-23

     dated October 26, 2009.fn After payment of the expenses of the
     Decedent’s last illness, expenses of estate administration, and all
     taxes, the Will provides for the remaining assets to be distributed
     to Charles J. Lang if he survives the Decedent, or Emma H. Lang
     if Charles J. Lang is deceased and she survives the Decedent, or
     if neither Charles nor Emma Lang survives the Decedent, equally
     to Arnold Steinberg and [The Masonic Villages of the Grand Lodge
     of Pennsylvania d/b/a Masonic Village at Sewickly (“Masonic
     Village”)]. As neither of the Langs was living at the time of the
     Decedent’s death on June 28, 2016, the third option under the
     Will was applicable.

     [During the fall of 2016, Executor paid Masonic Village a total of
     $150,000.00, through a check for $100,000.00 signed on
     September 23, 2016, and a check for $50,000.00 signed on
     November 21, 2016.] The Executor filed an Inheritance Tax
     Return on August 18, 2017, and an Inventory on March 23, 2018.
     The Inventory lists estate assets of almost $600,000[, and debts
     of $203,872.94, in which the Executor included the $150,000.00
     paid to Masonic Village as a beneficiary under the will.]

        Fn:     Mr. Steinberg was formerly a licensed attorney in
        this Commonwealth, having been disbarred by consent on
        December 30, 2008.

     As the Executor had not filed a Formal Account and completed the
     estate administration, [ ] Counsel on behalf of the Masonic Village
     filed [an October 5, 2020,] Petition seeking a Rule to Show Cause
     Why the Executor Should Not File a Formal Account, which was
     more than four years after the Decedent’s death. [In its petition,
     Masonic Village noted that when Executor claimed the
     $150,000.00 distribution under the will to Masonic Village as a
     deduction on the inheritance tax, he improperly subtracted the
     dollar amount twice from the Estate, thus depriving Masonic
     Village of a larger distribution.] Pursuant to an Order of Court
     dated November 30, 2020, the Executor was directed to file a First
     and Final Account on or before December 29, 2020, and a status
     conference was scheduled for December 30, 2020.

     As the Executor claimed to be recovering from Covid-19, the
     [orphans’ court] granted his request for an extension of time and
     directed the Account to be filed on or before February 16, 2021,

                                    -2-
J-S28033-23

     with a status conference scheduled for February 19, 2021. The
     Executor requested an additional extension of time, which was
     reluctantly granted.

     On or about March 18, 2021, the Executor provided Counsel for
     the Masonic Village a copy of a “Final Accounting”, which he
     claimed to have filed on March 12, 2021; however, the “Final
     Accounting” and a Petition for Adjudication do not appear on the
     docket of the Department of Court Records until August 2, 2021.

     The matter was placed on the September 20, 2021, Audit List
     before the [orphans’ court]. Objections were filed by Counsel for
     the Masonic Village and by the Office of the Attorney General
     (Charitable Trusts and Organizations Section), along with
     Supplemental Objections.        In summary, the Objections
     challenge[d] certain disbursements made by the Executor to
     himself for numerous claimed trips from his residence in Florida
     to Pittsburgh and excessive “commissions” that the Executor paid
     to himself.

     Over the next couple of months, the Executor sought repeatedly
     to delay a hearing in this matter. He sought discovery from the
     Commonwealth, even though he was the only person in
     possession of documentation of his expenses. On February 15,
     2022, the [orphans’ court] granted a Motion for Partial Judgment
     on the Pleadings with regard to a clear error on the Inheritance
     Tax Return [to the extent it] listed a $150,000 distribution to the
     Masonic Village (who is a beneficiary under the Will) as a debt.

     ....

     An evidentiary hearing was held on March 9, 2022. At that
     hearing, the burden was on the Executor to present evidence to
     disprove the Objections. He did not do so. When asked for copies
     of checks for certain expenses, he stated that the expenses were
     paid via credit card. When asked for the credit card receipts or
     statements, the Executor responded that he did not go to his
     storage facility to retrieve these documents. (N.T. 3/9/22, p. 14-
     15). The Executor repeatedly stated, “tell me what you want me
     to do” or “what expenses are you objecting to[?]” [The orphans’
     court opined that] it is not the responsibility of the Objectors to
     instruct the Executor on how to present his case and document
     his expenses.       Rather, [the orphan’s court continued], the
     Executor was required to be prepared—with receipts, cancelled

                                    -3-
J-S28033-23

     checks, credit card statement, etc.—to establish the validity of his
     expenses. He simply did not do so. . . .

     During the hearing, the Executor stated that he mailed an
     Amended Final Accounting to the [orphans’ court] and counsel.
     Per the court docket, the Amended Final Accounting was filed on
     March 10, 2022 (the day after the hearing). At the end of the
     hearing, the Attorney for the Commonwealth offered to provide
     the [orphans’ court] with a Proposed Order. The [orphans’ court]
     accepted the offer and afforded the Executor time to respond
     and/or provide copies of receipts and statements that he intended
     to retrieve from his storage unit.         The Attorney for the
     Commonwealth provided the [orphans’ court] with a draft Order
     via email on March 18, 2022.

     As of the date of preparation of the [orphans’ court’s
     Memorandum Opinion and Order of April 6, 2022, (filed on April
     8, 2022)], the Executor [had] not provided the [orphans’ court]
     with any additional documents or information.

     ....

     [Based on the orphans’ court’s review of the First and Final
     Accounting, the Amended Final Accounting, the Objections, and
     the Supplemental Objections, it sustained the Objections and
     Supplemental Objections on the following grounds:]

        First, as there is no documentation of the actual expenses
        incurred by the Executor, he is not entitled to be
        reimbursed.       Moreover, there are no grounds for
        reimbursement for “missed work”, both mileage and car
        rental fees, and “meal allowance.” Second, the Executor
        is not entitled to both an Executor’s fee and a “commission
        in lieu of attorney fee” (which is an undefined entry).
        Third, per the Johnson Estate case, the claimed Executor’s
        fee is extraordinary. Fourth, the number of trips claimed
        by the Executor to handle Estate matters is not believable,
        as this is not a complex estate.

     Based upon the foregoing, the [orphans’ court] issued its Order of
     April 6, 2022, [(filed on April 8, 2022) reducing the Executor’s fee
     to $24,895, eliminating the commission in lieu of attorney fee,
     reducing the debts of the Decedent to $53,557.94, reducing

                                    -4-
J-S28033-23

     Executor’s expenses to $5,522, and granting the Objections and
     Supplemental Objections in certain particulars.

     ...

     [Subsequently, the orphans’ court scheduled a Status Conference
     to be held on September 2, 2022.]           Executor, however,
     disregarded the [orphans’ court’s] order. He failed to appear for
     this Status Conference even though he was served with the July
     6, 2022, Order setting the Status Conference.

     [In the in orphans’ court’s Order of September 20, 2022, the court
     first noted Executor’s failure to appear at the Status Conference
     before it turned to the substantive issue arising from its] April 6,
     2022, Order requiring Executor to file an Amended Inheritance
     Tax Return on or before May 16, 2022, and an Amended Petition
     for Adjudication one month later, on or before June 15, 2022. This
     April 6, 2022, Order was temporarily stayed in light of Executor’s
     appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, [but the Superior
     Court quashed the appeal by per curiam order dated June 27,
     2022, because Executor, who was not a licensed attorney, was
     ineligible to represent the estate on appeal, and because the
     orphans’ court order was not a “final order” that was immediately
     appealable].

     Executor then submitted for filing with the Pennsylvania
     Department of Revenue a Second Amended Inheritance Tax
     Return for the Estate on July 12, 2022. Executor, however, failed
     to submit an Amended Petition for Adjudication one month later
     (or by August 12, 2022) as required by [the orphans’ court’s Order
     of] April 6, 2022.

           [The orphans’ court observed that] Executor has a
           substantial     history    of  neglecting   his    executor
           responsibilities for now almost two years. [Since the
           Masonic Village filed its October 5, 2020, Petition for Rule
           to Show Cause Why Executor and Trustee of the Estate of
           Mary H. Henderson Should Not File a Formal Account of the
           Estate], the [orphans’ court], without any objections from
           Masonic Village and the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney
           General (“OAG”), has graciously and generously permitted
           Executor numerous continuances to address Masonic
           Village’s Petition.    [It was further the finding of the
           orphans’ court that the] Executor, however, failed to act in

                                      -5-
J-S28033-23

        good faith and only engaged in actions which caused
        delays.

     Given the history of this Estate, [the orphans’ court] issue[d] a
     final order and grant[ed] the following particulars:

        (1)   During the hearing on March 9, 2022, Executor
              testified under oath that approximately sixty-six
              thousand dollars ($66,000) in liquid assets remain in
              the Estate. This amount, along with any additional
              Estate assets, shall be placed into the escrow
              account maintained by [the orphans’ court].
              Executor is prohibited from further disposition of any
              Estate assets.

        (2)   As a result of the hearing on March 9, 2022, [the
              orphans’ court found] the following to be an
              accounting of the above-referenced Estate:

                Gross amount of the estate assets $597,384.00

                Debts of Decedent                  ($53,557.94)

                Executor expenses/debt
                to Executor                         ($5,522.00)

                Funeral expenses                    ($3,856.00)

                Personal representative
                Commission                         ($24,895.00)

                Fees in lieu of attorney fees             $0.00

                Total expenses, costs and
                debts (or deductions)              ($87,830.94)

                Net residue of the Estate          $509,553.06

          Masonic Village is to receive a total of $254,776.53
          from the Estate.        Having previously received
          $150,000, Masonic Village is due and owed an
          additional $104,776.53 from the Estate.

                                    -6-
J-S28033-23

     Executor is required to file with the [orphans’ court] and serve
     upon the Masonic Village and the OAG a Formal Account of the
     Estate by September 23, 2022, to demonstrate the status of the
     payment of $104,776.53 owed to Masonic Village. In addition to
     complying with any applicable Rules of Court, this Formal Account
     of the Estate must be sent to the Masonic Village and the OAG by
     a means which guarantees receipt by these parties before the
     close of business on September 26, 2022.

     ...

     Judgment of $104,776.53 is issued in favor of Masonic Village and
     against the Estate and Executor. This judgment shall first be paid
     from the Estate. To the extent there is not full satisfaction of the
     judgment of $104,776.53 by the Estate, Executor is hereby
     surcharged and personally liable to Masonic Village for any amount
     owed for satisfaction of this judgment. This Order shall represent
     a Final Order from which Executor may appeal.

Orphans’ Court Orders, 04/6/22 and 09/20/22.

     Mr. Steinberg presents the following questions for this Court’s

consideration:

     1. Whether the Trial Court committed error in its rulings against
        Appellant in light of the fact that the record is devoid of any
        justification for the Court’s having granted the relief sought by
        the Appellees, despite pleadings having been filed by the
        Appellant, to which no factual pleadings were filed in opposition
        thereto, that showed that the Appellees were not entitled to
        the relief they were seeking.

     2. Whether the trial court showed a predisposition of prejudice
        toward the Appellant when it ignored the uncontested
        pleadings of the Appellant which explained the need for
        multiple trips to Pennsylvania to properly probate this Estate,
        and granted all relief sought by the Appellee Masonic Villages,
        despite a lack of even a scintilla of evidence offered by either
        Appellee to justify the reductions Ordered by the trial court.

     3. Whether the Trial Court showed a predisposition of prejudice
        toward the Appellant when, with no evidence offered to justify

                                    -7-
J-S28033-23

         it, it reversed many of the estate deductions and
         compensations that had been approved by the Commonwealth
         of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, Inheritance Tax
         Division, despite undisputed proof having been pled to justify
         all such deductions and necessary expenses.

      4. Whether the Trial Court showed a predisposition of prejudice
         toward the Appellant, when it held an ex parte hearing on
         September 2, 2022, adopting the fraudulent language of an
         order submitted by the Appellee Masonic Villages, indicating
         that the Appellant had been served with an Order that did not
         even appear on the docket.

      5. Whether the trial court showed a predisposition of prejudice
         toward the Appellant, when it entered an Order, prejudicially
         erroneous in both fact and law, allowing for a personal
         surcharge to be entered against the Appellant, when there was
         not even a hint of proof offered to satisfy either the factual or
         legal requirements for an order granting a request for a
         personal surcharge.

      6. Whether the apparent prejudice, demonstrated by the Trial
         Judge, along with the gross abuse of discretion on his part,
         warrants an outright reversal of the Order from which this
         appeal has been taken.

Brief of Appellant, at 7.

      Initially, we address the issue of Pa.R.A.P. 1925 waiver.               The

Pennsylvania Supreme Court has instructed: “[I]n determining whether an

appellant has waived his issues on appeal based on non-compliance with

[Rule] 1925, it is the trial court's order that triggers an appellant's obligation

under the rule, and, therefore, we look first to the language of that order.”

                                      -8-
J-S28033-23

Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 607 Pa. 341, 6 A.3d 1002, 1007-

08 (2010). The Berg Court warned:

      While we conclude that the specific facts of this case compel a
      departure from the strict application of waiver contemplated by
      Rule 1925(b), we note that the case sub judice illustrates the
      importance of the trial court's adherence to the requirements set
      forth in [Rule] 1925(b)(3). Although the amendments to Rule
      1925(b) were intended, in part, to address the concerns of the bar
      raised by cases in which courts found waiver because a Rule
      1925(b) [S]tatement was either too vague or so repetitive or
      voluminous that it did not enable the judge to focus on the issues
      likely to be raised on appeal, see [Rule] 1925 Comment,
      compliance by all participants, including the trial court, is
      required if the amendments and the rule are to serve their
      purpose.

Id. at 1012 (bold emphasis added).

       Our review of the orphans’ court docket reveals that pro se Appellant’s

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was not filed by November 9, 2022, as required

by the trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order. As a result, the orphans’ court’s Rule

1925(a) opinion finds waiver of all issues raised on appeal due to the patent

untimeliness of Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement.

      Appellant contends, however, that he never received the Rule 1925(b)

order, despite its being docketed, suggesting that the orphan’s court may not

have had his correct address.      It is apparent, moreover, that requisite

Orphan’s Court Rule 4.6 notice does not appear on the docket to demonstrate

that notice of the order was given for either the Rule 1925(b) order or the

Rule 1925(a) opinion.

                                     -9-
J-S28033-23

      Additionally, the orphan’s court’s Rule 1925(b) order does not indicate

the specific number of days within which Appellant had to file the statement

as required under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(i) (mandating that 1925(b) order

include number of days within which statement must be filed), nor does the

Rule 1925(b) order expressly state “any issues not properly included in the

Statement timely filed and served . . . shall be deemed waived,” as is required

by Rule 1925(b)(3)(iv). Instead, it reads, “failure to comply with this Order

may be considered by the appellate courts to be a waiver of all objections to

the order appealed from.”        Orphans’ Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Order,

10/20/2022. For these reasons, we decline to quash the present appeal for

Appellant’s belated filing of his court-ordered Rule 1925(b) concise statement.

      Turning to the merits of the present appeal, we begin by setting forth

our standard of review of Orphans’ Court decisions, as follows:

      The findings of a judge of the [O]rphans' [C]ourt division, sitting
      without a jury, must be accorded the same weight and effect as
      the verdict of a jury, and will not be reversed by an appellate court
      in the absence of an abuse of discretion or a lack of evidentiary
      support. This rule is particularly applicable to findings of fact
      which are predicated upon the credibility of the witnesses, whom
      the judge has had the opportunity to hear and observe, and upon
      the weight given to their testimony. In reviewing the Orphans'
      Court's findings, our task is to ensure that the record is free from
      legal error and to determine if the Orphans' Court's findings are
      supported by competent and adequate evidence and are not
      predicated upon capricious disbelief of competent and credible
      evidence. However, we are not limited when we review the legal
      conclusions that [the] Orphans' Court has derived from those
      facts.

                                     - 10 -
J-S28033-23

In re Estate of Cherwinski, 856 A.2d 165, 167 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation

omitted).

      Appellant’s six enumerated issues coalesce to argue that the orphans’

court showed a “predisposition of prejudice” toward him in his role as executor

when it rejected what he maintains were his uncontested pleadings in the form

of both a Final Account and Supplemental Final Account explaining the need

for numerous trips to Pennsylvania to probate the estate and granted all

Appellees’ requests for reductions to the Final Accounting. Brief of Appellant,

at 18. We disagree.

      Appellant presents a narrative asserting both that his repeated emails

to the Attorney General’s Office offering to amend his proposed estate return

and file it went unanswered, and that Appellee Masonic Villages sent an email

to him in January of 2019 stating it would not request the filing of an Account.

Brief of Appellant, at 19.   Had the Attorney General’s Office and Masonic

Villages responded in the affirmative to Appellant’s initial offer to amend the

Estate Return and file an Account, Appellant maintains, “much time and

expense would have been saved by all.” Id. at 20.

      The crux of Appellant’s argument is that the personal surcharge levied

against him was improper because his error of twice listing an estate deduction

for the $150,000 bequest to Masonic Villages was inadvertent and because his

submission of expenses and costs that were reviewed and approved by the

Department of Revenue, Income Tax Division, should not have formed the

basis for the orphans’ court’s ruling. To this end, he asserts:

                                     - 11 -
J-S28033-23

       In this case, the Appellant, acting as Executor, sought to
       administer the Estate, find a way to reduce State Inheritance
       Taxes, sent funds to the co-residuary beneficiary (the Appellee—
       [Masonic] Villages), and attempted to preserve those assets that
       could be preserved. That is exactly what he did. The pleadings
       filed by either Appellee do not show any accusations that the
       Appellant failed to perform these duties. Rather, they simply say
       that it cost too much money to administer this estate, and without
       having seen the mess caused by the fact that the estate home had
       been without utilities for several months, and without having ever
       spoken to anyone associated with the massive clean-up that was
       required, simply said that the Appellee-Villages wanted the Trial
       Court to reduce and eliminate the expenses borne by the Estate
       and the Appellant.[1]

       This request, despite the presence [sic] of even a scintilla of
       evidence to support it, was granted, in full, by the Trial Court who
       either ignored the pleadings of the Appellant, or who didn’t even
       bother to read and consider them. In short, this case became an
       instance of the Trial Court asking what the Appellee-Villages
       wanted, and then Granting it, despite a failure to produce law or
       fact to justify such action. At that point in time, the Appellee-
____________________________________________

1 In Appellant’s attempt to explain the reasons for so many trips, he offered

the following generally stated, unverified problems with and repairs to the
estate:

       The Executor made a substantial number of trips to Pennsylvania
       to tend to the business of the Administration of this Estate. The
       home of the Decedent had been locked up and without power for
       a period of at least two months. Food in three refrigerators had
       spoiled. The electrical panel in the garage had become defective.
       There were numerous plumbing problems that needed corrected
       [sic]. There were numerous repairs that had to be made on this
       home. A locksmith had to be hired and then met to change locks
       and make keys. There was a substantial amount of furniture and
       personal belongings that needed to be disposed of. Maintenance
       of the home and its surrounding property was required. There
       were no living relatives to do any of this work.

Appellant’s “Response to the Objections to the Account By the Masonic
Villages”, 2/7/2022, at ¶ 5.

                                          - 12 -
J-S28033-23

      Commonwealth “jumped on the bandwagon” and went along with
      every position taken by the Appellee [Masonic] Villages.

      “Ordinarily, the party seeking to surcharge an executor bears the
      burden of showing a failure to meet the required standard of care.”
      In re Westin, 874 A.2d 139, 145 (Pa. Super. 2005). Neither
      Appellee offered any proof or pleading to support the claims that
      the Appellant should be subject to a personal surcharge. All that
      they did was plead that the Appellant spent too much money and
      that his compensation, although approved by the Inheritance Tax
      Division, was too high.”

Appellant’s Reply Brief, at 15-17.

      The Commonwealth’s initial response is to refer to this Court’s per

curiam order of June 27, 2022, in which we quashed Appellant’s appeal

because he was not a licensed attorney and could not, therefore, represent

the estate on appeal. See R.R. 584; Norman for Estate of Shearlds v.

Temple University Health System, 208 A.3d 1115, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(holding a pro se executor may not represent an estate on appeal if the estate

has other beneficiaries or creditors). To the extent we construe Appellant’s

issues as contesting the merits of the trial court’s order upholding Masonic

Village’s Objections to the Final Accounting of the estate, we reassert our

previous determination that Appellant may not represent the estate in an

appeal of this determination.

      Nevertheless, a facet of Appellant’s present appeal from the Orphans’

Court’s order involves the discrete argument that the order surcharging him

$104,076.53 aggrieved him personally because it was reached by unfairly

denying him certain fees and reimbursement of expenses that he says were

reasonable, appropriate, and necessary to fulfill his obligation as executor to

                                     - 13 -
J-S28033-23

probate the Decedent’s Estate. Specifically, Appellant maintains that not only

did his pleadings substantiate his charges to the estate for all commissions

and fees, as well as all expenses associated with his Florida-to-Pennsylvania

trips charged to the estate, but they also went uncontested by Appellees. This

position, on both counts, is untrue.

      We adhere to the following standard of review:

      When reviewing a decree entered by the Orphans’ Court, this
      Court must determine whether the record is free from legal error
      and [whether] the trial 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, this
      Court will not reverse the trial court's credibility determinations
      absent an abuse of discretion.

In re Est. of Aiello, 993 A.2d 283, 287 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted).

      This Court has further explained:

      An executor, as a fiduciary of the estate, is required to use such
      common skill, prudence and caution as a prudent man, under
      similar circumstances, would exercise in connection with the
      management of his own estate. [.... A] surcharge may be imposed
      on the executor to compensate the estate for any losses incurred
      by the executor's lack of due care. When seeking to impose a
      surcharge against an executor for the mismanagement of an
      estate, those who seek the surcharge bear the burden of proving
      the executor's wrongdoing. However, where a significant
      discrepancy appears on the face of the record, the burden shifts
      to the executor to present exculpatory evidence and thereby avoid
      the surcharge.

In re Est. of Geniviva, 675 A.2d 306, 310–311 (Pa. Super. 1996) (internal

citations and quotations omitted).

      Whereas,

                                       - 14 -
J-S28033-23

         this Court has recognized the rule forbidding an executor
         from placing his own interests ahead of the interests of
         other beneficiaries:

           An executor is a fiduciary no less than is a trustee and,
           as such, primarily owes a duty of loyalty to a
           beneficiary of his trust. Executors, as well as other
           fiduciaries, are under an obligation to make full
           disclosure to beneficiaries respecting their rights and
           to deal with them with utmost fairness.

         The Supreme Court has elaborated accordingly that:

           He that is entrusted with the interest of others, cannot
           be allowed to make the business an object of interest
           to himself; because from the frailty of nature, one who
           has the power will be too readily seized with the
           inclination to use the opportunity for serving his own
           interest at the expense of others for whom he is
           entrusted.

     Thus, the rule forbidding self-dealing serves both to shield the
     estate and its beneficiaries and ensures the propriety of the
     executor's conduct. Consequently, the rule is inflexible, without
     regard to the consideration paid, or the honesty of intent.

   In re Est. of Walter, 191 A.3d 873, 881 (Pa. Super. 2018) (internal
   quotations, citations, and original brackets omitted).

In re Est. of DiMatteo, 293 A.3d 634 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).

     Furthermore, an executor or attorney seeking fees for services to an

estate bears the burden of proof. In re Estate of Sonovick, 541 A.2d 374,

376 (Pa. Super. 1988).    It is axiomatic that the executor of an estate is

accountable for the fees paid to themself and, thus, must present facts that

show entitlement to the requested compensation. Id.

     Attorneys   and   fiduciaries   are   entitled   to   reasonable   and   just

compensation based on actual services rendered to an estate. Id.; 20

                                     - 15 -
J-S28033-23

Pa.C.S.A. § 3537.       The determination of whether an administrator's

commission is reasonable is within the discretion of the orphans' court. In re

Estate of Rees, 625 A.2d 1203, 1206 (Pa. Super. 1993); see also In re

Strickler's Estate, 47 A.2d 134 (Pa. 1946). The orphans' court is authorized

“to reduce to a ‘reasonable and just’ level those fees and commissions claimed

by the fiduciary and their counsel.”   Estate of Rees, supra. We will not

overturn an orphans' court's decision to disallow attorney's fees “absent a

clear error or an abuse of discretion[.]” Id.

      Initially, it is apparent that Appellee Masonic Villages contested

Appellant’s accounting. As part of Masonic Villages’ “Objections to the First

and Final Account”, filed on April 14, 2021, it objected to the “flat fee”

disbursements of principal made by Appellant to reimburse himself a total of

$24,000 for nine Florida-to-Pittsburgh flights Appellant took between February

27, 2016, and July 22, 2016, as the Account neither explained the need for,

nor included documentation proving payment of the expenses associated with,

such trips. Other than conceding the need for the June 21, 2016, trip, which

occurred just before Decedent passed away, Masonic Villages requested

documentary support for the flat fee principal disbursements Appellant made

to cover his remaining claimed expenses as executor. See Objections to the

First and Final Account, 04/14/21, at 1-3.      Appellant produced no such

support, and so Masonic Villages objected to the $20,500 in disbursements

made to cover undocumented expenses for eight of the nine trips taken.

                                    - 16 -
J-S28033-23

      Furthermore, in Masonic Villages’ October 6, 2021, “Supplemental

Objections to the Final Accounting”, filed in response to Appellant’s August 2,

2021, Final Accounting, it presented a detailed objection to Appellant’s

“itemization” of additional disbursements on the Account in the amount of

$70,075.00 made between July 29, 2016, and March 25, 2018, to cover

claimed expenses associated with 20 more trips from Florida to Pittsburgh

taken during this 20-month timeframe following Decedent’s death. Again, in

contesting the need for such frequent and costly trips, Masonic Villages

asserted that Appellant provided no documentation, with accompanying proof

of payments, explaining why 20 costly trips were necessary to probate a

relatively simple estate.

      In this vein, Masonic Villages’ Supplemental Objections posited that the

orphan’s court should deny disbursements for 18 of the 20 trips outright and

otherwise eliminate disbursements made to cover claimed mileage expenses,

which, it argued, should be unavailable for rental car use.      Supplemental

Objections, at 3-4. After eliminating 18 trips from the accounting, Masonic

Villages concluded, the “Corrected Disbursement to which Executor is entitled”

equaled $5,522.00 rather than the $70,075 claimed by Appellant. Id. at 4.

      Masonic Villages also contested Appellant’s having paid himself a

$59,700 Executor’s Commission, which comprised $29,850 for the Executor’s

Fee and $29,850 for administration in lieu of attorney fees. Because Appellant

is not licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, Masonic Villages argument

                                    - 17 -
J-S28033-23

went, he could claim neither attorney fees nor anything “in lieu of” attorney

fees in the Final Account.

        The Commonwealth, acting through the Office of the Attorney General

in pursuance of its public responsibility to supervise charities via its parens

patriae powers, joined Masonic Villages in these objections. In so doing, it

pointed to Appellant’s failure to heed the orphans’ court’s instructions to bear

his burden of proof by producing at the scheduled March 9, 2022, evidentiary

hearing documentary evidence supporting his claimed expenses.

        Referring to the orphans’ court’s memorandum opinion and order dated

April   9,   2022,   reproduced   verbatim    in   relevant   part,   supra,   the

Commonwealth emphasizes that Appellant was given every opportunity to

submit proof of expenses but “completely failed to provide copies of checks,

credit card receipts, and credit card statements documenting the specific

expenses that he was claiming.”        Brief for Appellee Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, at 28, citing orphan’s court opinion and order, 4/9/22, at 1-2.

Given the “estate’s simplicity and value,” the Commonwealth reasons, the

orphans’ court acted within its sound discretion to reduce Appellant’s claimed

expenses.

        Moreover, the Commonwealth points to Appellant’s apparent dissipation

of the Estate after the March 9, 2022, hearing, despite having been ordered

by the Orphans’ Court that he was not to spend any of the remaining

$66,110.13 balance that Appellant, himself, informed the trial court both

orally at the hearing and through the submission of his March 1, 2022

                                     - 18 -
J-S28033-23

Amended First and Final Account, which existed at the time of the hearing.

There is no dispute that an excerpt of the notes of testimony contained in the

certified record confirms that Appellant agreed with the stated amount of the

balance and indicated he understood the court’s directive that he was not to

“touch” said balance. N.T., 4/9/22, at 5, 23.2
____________________________________________

2 The excerpt provides, as follows:

       [APPELLANT]:                       . . . Judge, you entered an Order
                                          January 7th directing certain things
                                          to be done, one of which was I had
                                          to respond to these objections – I’m
                                          sorry—to the Motion for Judgment
                                          on the Pleadings by February 24th.

                                          February 15th, you entered an Order
                                          granting that Motion and ordering
                                          me to file the Amended Account by
                                          February 28th.

                                          ...

                                          I sent the First Accounting -- The
                                          Amended Accounting – up probably
                                          around March 1st or March 2nd.

                                          We did delete the second $150,000
                                          disbursement,     or     credit,   or
                                          whatever you want to call it, from
                                          there, and as a result, the Estate no
                                          longer shows a loss, but it shows a
                                          balance of $66,110.13.

                                          ...

       ATTORNEY HERNE [OAG]: [Appellant] indicated earlier today,
                             that there was $66,000 in the
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 19 -
J-S28033-23

       After careful review, we conclude that Appellant offers nothing to rebut

evidence of record that he failed to satisfy his burden as executor to prove

both the need for so many expensive trips and the payments for all services

claimed necessary to probate the estate. Despite receiving from a patient

orphans’ court ample time to produce such proof, Appellant simply restated

his unsubstantiated claims that the estate required more work than Masonic

Villages and the Commonwealth possibly could know.                At such point, the

orphans’ court had before it nothing more than Appellant’s self-prepared

ledger of claimed expenses unaccompanied by proof of payments and his

insistence that the court should just believe him.              Because Appellant’s
____________________________________________

                                          Account. If he would just not touch
                                          that money.

       THE COURT:                         You are not going to touch the
                                          money, right, Mr. Steinberg?

       [APPELLANT]:                       I’m not touching anything.

       THE COURT:                         Okay. Good. $66,000 is what Mr.
                                          Herne is referencing.

       ATTORNEY HERNE:                    Which you indicated was in your
                                          Amended Accounting.

       [APPELLANT]:                       Yeah, which you should have had.
                                          I’m surprised you don’t have it, but,
                                          yes.

       ATTORNEY HERNE:                    I’m surprised as well, sir.

N.T., 4/9/22, at 5, 23.

                                          - 20 -
J-S28033-23

inadequate response both flouted the orphans’ court’s order for documentary

proof of claimed expenses and failed to meet an executor’s obligations under

controlling authority cited above, we discern no error with the surcharge order

entered below.

      Order affirmed.

DATE: 12/13/2023

                                    - 21 -