J-A20011-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ESTATE OF CHARLES CROWDER, III : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
AN INCAPACITATED PERSON : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: CHARLES CROWDER, III :
:
:
:
: No. 323 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Decree Entered December 29, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Orphans’ Court at
No(s): 2020-X1906
ESTATE OF CHARLES CROWDER, III : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
AN INCAPACITATED PERSON : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: CHARLES CROWDER, III :
:
:
:
: No. 327 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Decree Entered December 29, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Orphans’ Court at
No(s): 2020-X1484
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 1, 2022
Charles Crowder, III, (Appellant) appeals from the December 29, 2021
amended final decree entered by the Montgomery County Orphans’ Court that
determined that Appellant remained incapacitated.1 The decree also removed
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1The two appeals were consolidated sua sponte by this Court in accordance
with Pa.R.A.P. 513. See Order, 3/2/22.
J-A20011-22
Appellant’s daughter, Tierra Williams, as his healthcare power of attorney,
continued Edythe Shapiro’s appointment as the plenary permanent guardian
of Appellant’s estate, and appointed Edythe Shapiro the guardian of
Appellant’s person, which authorized her to consent to medical treatment for
Appellant. After review, we affirm.
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, … 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, 206-07 (Pa. Super. 2012)).
Appellant raises the following two issues for out review:
1. Whether the trial court erred and otherwise abused its
discretion by appointing a Guardian of the Person where the
incapacitated person had demonstrated that he was able to
-2-
J-A20011-22
handle his own affairs and make appropriate decisions for
himself and where he had an adequate support system
available to assist him if needed?
2. Whether the decision of the Orphans’ Court was against the
weight of the evidence?
Appellant’s brief at 4.
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the thorough opinion authored by the Honorable Gail A.
Weilheimer of the Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of
Montgomery County, dated March 8, 2022. We conclude that Judge
Weilheimer’s well-reasoned opinion appropriately disposes of the issues and
accompanying arguments presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt
Judge Weilheimer’s opinion as our own and affirm the decree from which
Appellant appealed.
Decree affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/1/2022
-3-
Circulated 10/04/2022 10:05 AM