In Re: Estate of Konjolka, W. Appeal of: Brown, T.
In Re: Estate of Konjolka, W. Appeal of: Brown, T. No. 1664 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- Decedent Walter J. Konjolka died testate in 2014; letters were granted on his 2003 will to Ena W. Konjolka (Executrix).
- Appellant Tara Brown produced a July 1, 2012 codicil and petitioned to admit it to probate; Executrix alleged the codicil was a forgery.
- A two-day hearing admitted competing forensic handwriting reports: Brown’s expert (Papadopoulos) said the signature was genuine; Executrix’s expert (Detwiller) said it was a crude imitation.
- The trial court found Detwiller’s methods and credentials superior, discredited Brown’s eyewitness witnesses (including the notary whose log was allegedly destroyed), and found the codicil forged by clear and convincing evidence.
- Brown raised four appellate claims: improper burden analysis/credibility findings; admission of undisclosed expert report; overreliance on expert testimony contrary to precedent; and allowing an unlisted witness to testify.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in credibility findings, deeming several arguments waived for lack of development, and rejecting procedural objections to expert and impeachment testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | Executrix's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court ignored the clear-and-convincing burden and misweighed evidence | Trial court’s findings can only support that the codicil is genuine; alleged misapplication of burden | Trial court applied correct standard and resolved credibility against Brown | Court: No abuse of discretion; factual findings supported; codicil found forged by clear and convincing evidence |
| Admission/use of appellee’s expert report not provided to Brown | Trial court erred permitting an undisclosed detailed expert report and testimony | Rule cited by Brown governs expert discovery, not admissibility; no prejudice shown | Court: Claim waived for inadequate development; meritless on the merits under Rule 4003.5 scope |
| Weight of expert testimony vis-à-vis fact witnesses (Elias precedent) | Expert should not prevail over positive fact-witness testimony; Brown’s witnesses were credible | Trial court found Brown’s fact witnesses not credible and relied on superior expert analysis | Court: Elias applies only when fact witnesses are credible; here fact witnesses were discredited, so expert opinion was properly weighed |
| Permitting previously unlisted witness (prison records supervisor) to testify and admit documents | Trial court erred under pretrial rules by allowing unknown witness and documents | Rule cited pertains to expert discovery, and impeachment testimony admissible; no developed legal showing by Brown | Court: Claim waived for failure to develop; meritless because cited rule does not bar impeachment evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Cruciani, 986 A.2d 853 (Pa. Super. 2009) (forgery is a factual issue turning on credibility and requires clear, direct, precise, and convincing proof)
- In re Estate of Presutti, 783 A.2d 803 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard for appellate review of Orphans’ Court factual findings and credibility)
- In re Elias’ Estate, 239 A.2d 393 (Pa. 1968) (expert opinion in forgery cases carries little weight when contrary to credible fact-witness testimony)
- Harris v. Toys “R” Us–Penn, Inc., 880 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2005) (argument waiver doctrine for failure to develop appellate argument)
- Eichman v. McKeon, 824 A.2d 305 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate waiver and argument development requirements)