J-A13004-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: TRUSTS UNDER WILL OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
ROBERT L. MONTGOMERY, JR. : PENNSYLVANIA
DECEASED FOR THE BENEFIT OF :
H.BEATTY CHADWICK (TRUST NO. 6) :
AND MARITAL TRUST UNDER WILL :
OF ROBERT L. MONTGOMERY, JR., :
DECEASED, FOR THE BENEFIT OF :
ELIZABETH B. MONTGOMERY AS :
APPOINTED BY THE WILL OF : No. 3007 EDA 2019
ELIZABETH B. MONTGOMERY, :
DECEASED FOR THE BENEFIT OF H. :
BEATTY CHADWICK (TRUST NO. 7) :
:
:
APPEAL OF: H. BEATTY CHADWICK :
Appeal from the Order Entered September 30, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Orphans’ Court
Division at No(s): No. 1977-X0448
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: Filed: August 13, 2020
H. Beatty Chadwick (Appellant) appeals pro se from the orphans’ court’s
adjudication of the 2018 accounts of two trusts created under the will of
Robert L. Montgomery, Jr., (Decedent), and the will of Elizabeth B.
Montgomery, the deceased wife of Decedent. Pursuant to the court’s
adjudication, Appellant’s objections were dismissed and the payment of
attorney’s fees to PNC Bank, N.A. (Trustee/Appellee) was approved. We
affirm.
As noted in a prior decision by this Court, responding to an earlier appeal
filed by Appellant, this matter has a “long, torturous, and infamous” history.
J-A13004-20
See In re Trusts Under the Will of Montgomery, 161 A.3d 392 (Pa. Super.
2017) (unpublished memorandum). The terms of the trusts provided that
Appellant was to be the lifetime beneficiary of the trusts and that after
Appellant’s death, the principal of each trust was to be distributed to various
charities. Specifically, with regard to the amount of the payment due
Appellant, he was to receive a percentage of the lesser of the net income of
the trust or a stated percentage of the fair market value of the principal of the
trust.
The present appeal arises from the filing of the fifth accounting of trust
#6 and the third accounting of trust #7. As part of the petitions for
adjudication of the accounts, Appellee requested the payment of attorney’s
fees in the amount of $447,635.40 to cover the costs incurred by it, which
were expended to defend itself against Appellant’s claims, both past and
present. Following the filing of these petitions, Appellant filed objections
alleging Appellee breached its fiduciary duties relating to the investment of
the trusts’ assets and asserting that its request for attorney’s fees should be
denied.
A hearing was held on February 26, 2019, at which the court heard
testimony and received evidence. On September 30, 2019, the court issued
its adjudications, dismissing Appellant’s objections and approving the
payment of the attorney’s fees. The orphans’ court also denied Appellant’s
motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, Appellant filed a timely appeal.
-2-
J-A13004-20
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, 563 Pa. 646, 758 A.2d 1200 (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, 577 Pa. 722, 847 A.2d 1287
(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 our review:
1. Where the trustee of trusts with a beneficiary entitled only to
receive trust income invests for total return principally by
capital appreciation and the trusts achieve substantial capital
appreciation, did the court below err in dismissing objections
to [a]ccounts that the trustee violated fiduciary duties by
refusing to exercise its statutory power to adjust the total
return of the trusts to produce income which will accomplish
the purposes of the trusts as set forth in the terms thereof?
2. Whether the court below abused its discretion in allowing a
trustee to collect from trusts additional counsel fees and
-3-
J-A13004-20
expenses of $477,635.40 for an [a]ccounting proceeding where
$516,733.78 already had been allowed for such purposes,
1,874 hours were billed by counsel to represent the trustee in
such proceeding where the evidentiary hearing was less than
one day, and total fees and expenses allowed were 88% of the
combined assets of the trusts?
Appellant’s brief at 37.
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the thorough 17-page opinion of the Honorable Lois E.
Murphy of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, dated
September 30, 2019. We conclude that Judge Murphy’s opinion properly
disposes of the issues and accompanying arguments presented by Appellant.
Accordingly, we adopt her opinion as our own and affirm the order dismissing
Appellant’s objections.
Order affirmed.
Judge Dubow joins this memorandum.
Judge Lazarus files a concurring statement in which President Judge
Emeritus Bender and Judge Dubow join.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/13/20
-4-