J-A26014-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ESTATE OF RONALD MARK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
ORENAK PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: ANN L. ORENAK, AS
EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD
MARK ORENAK
No. 1830 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered November 5, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 32-15-0019
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., RANSOM, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 22, 2016
Ann L. Orenak (Appellant), Executrix of the Estate of Ronald Mark
Orenak,1 appeals from the orphans’ court’s November 5, 2015 order that
denied her Petition for Citation of Declaratory Judgment. The denial of the
Petition directed that the funds in a joint bank account were to be distributed
to Marilyn Burns and were not to be included in Ronald Orenak’s estate or
distributed in accordance with his will. After review, we affirm.
Appellant’s statement of the question involved reads as follows:
“Whether Ronald Orenak’s Estate is entitled to Ronald’s half of the funds in
Anne Orenak’s[2] joint accounts, where Ronald died only four (4) days after
____________________________________________
1
Ann Orenak is Ronald Orenak’s widow.
2
Anne Orenak, Ronald’s and Marilyn’s mother, had established a joint bank
account in her and her children’s names.
J-A26014-16
co-owner, Anne Orenak[?]” Appellant’s brief at 3. To support her statement
of the question, Appellant sets forth the following three arguments:
I. The MPAA[3] should not be applied mechanically to the factual
anomaly of this case.
II. There is sufficient evidence to rebut the survivorship
presumption of the MPAA.
III. Novosielski[4] suggests that provisions of a [w]ill may be
considered, and its progeny do not preclude rebuttal of the
presumption.
Id. at 10, 13 and 18.
In addressing these issues, we are guided by the following:
Our standard of review of an orphans’ court’s decision is
deferential. In re Estate of Strahsmeier, 54 A.3d 359, 362
(Pa. Super. 2012). When reviewing an orphans’ court decree,
this Court must determine whether the record is free from legal
error and whether the orphans’ court’s findings are supported by
the record. Id. at 362-363. Because the orphans’ court sits as
the finder of fact, it determines the credibility of the witnesses
and, on review, this Court will not reverse its credibility
determinations absent an abuse of discretion. Id. at 363.
However, this Court is not bound to give the same deference to
the orphans’ court conclusions of law. Id. Where the rules of
law on which the orphans’ court relied are palpably wrong or
clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court’s decree. Id.
Moreover, we point out that an abuse of discretion is not merely
an error of judgment. However, if in reaching a conclusion, the
court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised
is shown by the record to be manifestly unreasonable or the
product of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, discretion has
been abused. Id.
____________________________________________
3
Multiple Parties Account Act, 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301-6306.
4
In re Novosielski, 992 A.2d 89 (Pa. 2010).
-2-
J-A26014-16
Estate of Sacchetti v. Sacchetti, 128 A.3d 273, 281-82 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(quoting In re Estate of Zeevering, 78 A.3d 1106, 1108 (Pa. Super.
2013)).
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the thorough opinion of the Honorable Carol Hanna of
the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County, dated November 5, 2015.
We conclude that Judge Hanna’s opinion accurately disposes of the issue and
accompanying arguments presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt
her opinion as our own and affirm the order denying Appellant’s petition on
that basis.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/22/2016
-3-