Gebler v. Gatti

Kelly N. GEBLER Ray

Gregory GATTI and Sisson. J.

Appeal Gregory Gatti J.

Superior Pennsylvania. Aug. 29,

Submitted 2005.

Filed Feb.

Reargument Denied April Erie, Moore, for appellant.

James G. 2 Erie, Gebler, Bleem, 385, 569,

Peter Bailey, appel- Pa.Super W. 439 654 A.2d (1995). lee. 575-576 A full discussion follows. Kroto, Jr., Erie, Sission, Frank L. Facts appellee. Gatti Mother and were involved in a seven-year relationship; they never mar- KLEIN, BEFORE: MeCAFFERY and relationship, ried. Toward the end of the TAMILIA, JJ. Mother pregnant. learned she was Gatti believed that he he was father and so KLEIN, OPINION BY J.: helped birth, at- prepare Mother for the ¶ 1 Gregory appeals J. from birth, tended the and had his on put name order entered in the Court of Common the child’s birth certificate. Unbeknownst Pleas of Erie County determining that un- Gatti, Mother, certainly but known to der the paternity by estoppel, doctrine of Mother had had a sexual relationship with Gatti is estopped denying paternity another man around the time she con- and legal therefore he is father of ceived B.J.G. B.J.G., 25, born May Because we ¶ 4 By the time the nine child was

find the trial court in concluding erred that old, months and Mother ended their the record was devoid evidence of mis- an relationship. Mother filed action representation, we reverse.1 against support. Gatti for under the Still belief an that he and Mother had had ¶ Gatti, 2 who never married to relationship, exclusive into a Gatti entered (Mother), Kelly N. Gebler held the child stipulated support order and attended as his misrepre out own under Mother’s custody paid conciliation conference. Gatti having sentation he was one support custody rights and exercised his sexual relations with Mother at the time of 2003, until February when the child was conception. acting He ceased as the eighteen months old. child’s father when learned that he was ¶ Thereafter, Gatti noticed that biological not the father. The child was child him and did not seem resemble eighteen months old at that time. Since a private performed, had test which DNA the doctrine of paternity estoppel is September excluded him father. In as the at “achieving aimed fairness as between 2004, he filed a motion to allow a second them, parents by holding both mother test, paternity DNA as the first would not conduct,” and prior their can be or- accepted by the court. applied not be these under facts. Fish v. (1) Ray dered that: Sisson putative Behers, 559 Pa. parties be added all and the party; as a (1999), McCandless, quoting v. Freedman testing; child and DNA submit to DNA (1995). Pa. 654 A.2d 532-33 dispositive test results would not defy principles To do so would of equity, support. issue punishing sought party do the right rewarding thing party 6 The results excluded Gatti DNA test Thereafter, perpetrated has a fraud. See Kohler v. as the However, infra, appeal 1. We note that was taken stated res no from the for reasons neither Ordinarily, order. this would render judicata applica- nor judicata paterni- the matter res determine Moody Moody, v. ble here. See Manze, ty as matter of law. Manze (Pa.Super.2003). (1987). Pa.Super. 523 A.2d 821 are; person their if a knowing parents At who hearing argument. court held a parent the court as the and bonded with hearing, the conclusion acted required principle that the the child should not be determined that, damaging result trauma by estoppel applied potentially as a suffer that being his failure to or come told the may actions his raise show that from misrepresentation, fraud was es- all his life is not or father he known D.W.T., 796 topped denying paternity. from We dis- fact father. T.L.F. v. A.2d his agree. (Pa.Super.2002). 358 Discussion ¶ Here, determined the trial court that held himself out as Presumption A. Paterni- Paternity of eighteen of the child’s the first months by ty Estoppel life, acknowledged the child at paternity of ¶ wedlock, If a child is born out of birth, a order and entered into presumption paternity ap- of does not rights. custody his The court exercised family ply because there is no intact therefore, concluded, that under these protect. Brinkley King, v. 549 Pa. estoppel applicable facts and Gatti was (1997). If presumption 701 A.2d 176 denying paternity. from estopped apply, putative does father is enti- Behers, Pa. 741 A.2d 721 Fish v. hearing estoppel. tled on the of issue Zadori, (1999); 443 Pa.Super. Zadori v. T.M., supra; v. Brinkley, B.S. (1995). that 661 A.2d 370 Under doc- (Pa.Super.2001); Barnard trine, stated, precluded court Gatti was Anderson, (Pa.Super.2001). 767 A.2d 592 previ- that he challenging “from the status ¶ 8 The doctrine of paternity (Trial ously Opinion, accepted.” § estoppel is codified at 23 Pa.C.S. 4). at 1/12/05 the statutory where one of of means estab accurate, though 11 This is an incom- lishing paternity holding is out the child as plete, statement of law. court providing one’s support.2 own operat- the fact that Gatti was disregards ing the belief that he in fact was the under B. misrepresentation Proof fraud or father, because Mother never indicated precludes application paternity by es- him another man possible that was that toppel could he embraced be father. That ¶ Where, here, there is no relatively period that status short intact unit family protect, presump misled solely time because he was is paternity tion of not apply. does Whether critical factor the trial overlooks. estoppel applies depends upon the tri- particular Estoppel supplemental opinion, facts of the 12 In its case. acknowledged public actions is based on the al court evidence analysis policy should secure in fraud is relevant to children be paternity. purposes openly holds the child to be 2. Determination of that the father out —For prescribing born out of benefits children into his his and either receives home by, through the wedlock from and provides support for the child. by any paternity shall be determined one of (3)If convincing evidence there clear and following ways: child, man was the father of that the parents of a child out of wed- If the born prior include a court determina- which lock have married each other. paternity. tion of child, If, during the it is lifetime 5102(b). § 23 Pa.C.S. convincing clear and determined putative and that “a Q: father -will not upon Based information what estopped denying paternity when you do? fraudulent conduct putative induces that A: I took the role a responsible father into treating the child as his own.” father, and I cared for the think- (Supplemental Opinion, citing 3/15/05 ing that it was mine. I was the one J.S., J.C. v. 826 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super.2003); she had relations with. Doran, (Pa.Su

Doran v. 820 A.2d 1279 per.2003)). concluded, however, The court : n { ‡ v presented that Gatti no evidence that |Y]ou Q: misrepresented Mother ... acknowledged the fact that Gatti was the father and that he when the child just raises the issue was born. We cov- that, 1925(b) that, for the first you time his ered right? Pa.R.A.P. You ac- Statement of Complained knowledged Matters yours? of on child was Appeal. disagree. We analysis This ig A: Through what she was saying to me nores both the evidence of record and the I believed so. realities of the circumstances here. (N.T., 21). at p. See B.O. v. 1/11/05 ¶ Clearly, Mother holding is all the C.O., 404 Pa.Super. here; cards only she knew that another (1991) (“When an allegation of fraud is might man biological be the father and injected case, in a the whole tone and only she could inform Gatti. The mother tenor of the matter changes. opens It only is the one who knows who possi- door to overturning poli- settled issues and are, ble fathers at least until a paternity law.”).3 cies of the test is done. Mother’s provide failure to distinguishable This case is Gatti with the information she Zadori, Zadori v. 443 Pa.Super. knew, and which she knew if divulged she (1995), A.2d 370 where this Court held provide would Gatti with a clear under- appellant estopped was from denying pa- standing matter, of the lulled him into ternity. There, appellant knew the child believing he was the father. Mother con- born, was his on the date the child was cealed that which should have been dis- fact acknowledged that the full term closed, and Gatti acted accordingly. The child was born only three months after the trial court noted that might Mother have parties began sexual relations. Id. at thought the child likely was most Gatti’s this, 661 A.2d 370. Despite knowing ap- rather than the other man she was having pellant agreed to amend the child’s birth However, relations with. she was the one certificate to list himself as the fa- birth having knew she was relations with ther and thereafter parties along with someone else and never revealed it to Gat- together the child lived family as a ti. This constitutes fraud or at least mis- years almost three after the child’s birth. representation, and it is undisputed in the Id. record:

Q: say you Did she you ¶ were Here, contrast, by essen- the father? tially in during the dark the relevant time Yes, A: and, she did. period truth, once he learned 3. The misrepresenta- by test for fraud is: recipient upon misrepresentation; tion; (2) utterance; (3) fraudulent an inten- damage recipient proxi- to the as a recipient tion the maker that the will there- C.O., mate result. B.O. v. 590 A.2d at 315. act; (4) by by justifiable induced to reliance facts, cannot, fraudulently appellant caused acknowl- disengaged. He under these edge paternity). held those actions. Conclusion also 16 We note that even where relationship es- been in applying 18 The trial court erred here, tablished, unlike case by estoppel. the doctrine of misrepresentation preclude fraud or protect; no there family There is intact Doran, application of doctrine. See relationship level no discernible is swpra (following DNA test that exclud- Gatti; child and Gatti discon- between the 11- appellant ed the as the father of the himself as father once holding tinued out longer year-old appellant no father; not the he learned he was own; held the child out his this Court fa- responsible Gatti’s as a behavior estoppel apply); held did not see also eighteen ther for months was caused (where Moody, supra appellant was misled of the truth. Mother’s concealment Under signed agreed at the time he order of case, application facts of this support, apply pater- this Court refused preclud- paternity by estoppel doctrine V.R., nity by judicata); res cf. ed. G.W., al. v. (Pa.Super.2002) et A.2d 977 Case for fur- Reversed. remanded (acknowledgement of paternity must be proceedings Opin- ther with consistent this years discovering within of rescinded two relinquished. ion. Jurisdiction fraud). ¶ ¶ Thus,, TAMILIA, J., the underlying considerations Dissenting files a public application the policy that drives of Opinion. are not present doctrine here: there is BY DISSENTING OPINION no relationship discernible between the TAMILIA, J.: Gatti; acting child and Gatti discontinued In matter us Gregory before as father when he learned that not he was appeals the of the trial court Gatti decision father; biological not and the child is legal him to be the father of which finds unprotected Ray left putative since father to the of pursuant equitable B.G. Sisson has been added as a and party trial estoppel. majority The reverses the blood tests have him determined to be apply court finds doctrine does not Further, strong pub- father. mother, Gebler, Kelly as the N. fraudu- policy lic against permitting a who party lently appellant induced to undertake has acted in upon misrepresen- reliance thus responsibility parenting tation suffer harm a result precludes by estoppel. Upon establishing paternity application of here. Whoever my transcript careful review of the mother guessed probable she 1925(a) record, reproduced appellant’s knew it not was certain that father was statement, parties the briefs assuming responsibility Gatti. Before Opinion supplemental Opin- trial court his, might a child not be he needs ion, I trial was in believe the court correct know that. It is from our clear review majority findings Opinion its the record that Mother’s concealment was I, therefore, respectfully dis- is in error. B.O., intended to deceive Gatti. See su- sent. Hamilton,

pra; Hamilton v. cf. majori- in the (rejecting argu- 2 The statement facts (Pa.Super.2002) fraud conformity in with the ty Opinion ment where no evidence of record was in the court findings Opinion cited to conclusion that mother of facts trial and those in reproduced record. specifically ruled out fraud in the majority goes astray in stating finding following statement: that “father” “held the child out as his own However, there allegations were neither under the misrepresentation mother’s of mother’s activity fraudulent nor evi- he was the having one sexual rela- dence of or misrepresentation fraud tions with at conception” mother time of this case. Specifically, Mr. Gatti failed 2). (majority Opinion p. As the trial court to present any evidence to indicate that Opinion, detailed in its mother any misrepresentation made or a (hereinafter “Mother”) Kelly N. Gebler fraudulent inducing utterance Mr. Gatti engaged and Mr. seven-year to act as the child’s father. To the other, relationship however, with each contrary, testimony the credible they never married and never lived to- she, Gatti, mother reveals that like Mr. gether. Near the end of their relation- believed that Mr. the child’s ship, mother learned that she was preg- Moreover, testimony mother’s nant with the child and she believed that at the Support De Novo Hearing that Mr. Gatti was the child’s father. Within she ‘would also like to have a DNA test one month discovering that she was know,’ done I so do further indicates

pregnant, mother informed Mr. Gatti of that she was unaware that Mr. Gatti was the pregnancy and that he was the not the child’s biological father. testified, child’s father. As Mr. Gatti believed that he was biologi- the child’s Supplemental Opinion citing, and, cal thereafter, assumed the Transcript Novo, of Proceedings De role of a responsible father. 8/12/04,at 3. J., Trial Opinion, Kelly, 1/12/05, Court at 1. ¶4 out, The trial points court further ¶ 8 In supplemental Opinion, the “[njevertheless, time, for the first Mr. Gat- trial court continued to address the fraud ti in his Complained Statement of Matters (which allegation untimely), stating was Appeal, of on pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. “Mr. Gatti avers that this Court erred in 1925(b),raised an issue of fraud or misrep- application its paternity by of the resentation Supplemental mother.” because, pursuant allega- her Opinion alleged at 1. in Matters first tions, mother induced him into believing 1925(b) appeal part statement on are not that he was biological the child’s father of the record and not be considered and, therefore, he is not estopped from by the appellate majority court.4 The denying paternity of the child because he developed theory its of the case reverse ceased to have contact with the child once fashion pursuing the blood test and the fraud was revealed.” Supplemental proof non-paternity DNA as J., 3/15/05, Trial es- Opinion, Kelly at 1. before court, J.S., tablishing by convincing The trial clear and evidence citing J.C. v. (Pa.Super.2003) Doran, that by estoppel procured and Doran v. was fraudulently. A.2d 1279 (Pa.Super.2003), acknowledges judge The trial is the arbi- credibility evidence of fraud is ter of relevant to the of the witnesses and equitable estoppel analysis. court’s Sup- weight of the and on all counts plemental Opinion Further, at 1. she has concluded that of the Pennsylvania Appellate Rule of Procedure Issues not raised in the lower court are Issue, Requisite provides: for Reviewable waived and cannot be raised for the first (a) General appeal. rule..— time on a depen- child as doc- even claimed the Gatti pursuant child was established purposes. for tax dent income of equitable estoppel.5 trine time child was nine By the that the accurately 5 facts case are of this old, had their parties ended months Opinion. in the trial court described filed Accordingly, mother relationship. (hereinafter Kelly N. “Moth- Gebler Thereafter, the support of the child. er”) in a engaged and Mr. Gatti seven- of child parties agreed to an amount other, how- year relationship with each Order was issued support, ever, they married and lived never never addition, In paid support. Mr. Gatti their rela- together. Near the end of Custody parties Conciliation attended mother learned that she was tionship, resulted in an Order Conference that with the child she pregnant believed establishing periods custody both father. Gatti was child’s Mr. Mr. Gatti. Pursuant mother and discovering that one month of Within orders, pay Gatti continued to Mr. mother informed Mr. pregnant, she was custody support and to exercise his that he pregnancy Gatti of February child until rights with the the child’s As Mr. testi- father. fied, he believed that he was the child’s The last time Mr. Gatti saw and, thereafter, as- father February child was in when responsible sumed the role of a private DNA the results of received anticipation Specifically, test, indicating that he was arrival, and mother child’s Mr. Gatti initiated the child’s father. Father together made and Mr. at- plans testing suspi- own upon DNA based his pre-natal physician’s tended visits with child’s father. cions that he was not the regard mother. With child’s testified that Specifically, birth, present Mr. for the [Gatti] was not resemble him. stayed

birth and he with mother at the In Mr. Gatti September Moreover, hospital. hospital, Mr. Re- presented to a Motion this Court signed pa- acknowledgement an Pa- questing the Allow Second Court ternity given and the his last child was Order, ternity/DNA By dated Test. name her on birth certificate. 13, 2004, or- this Court September (1) alleged dered: the addition Upon mother from and child’s release father, Ray Sisson, as par- stayed hospital, Mr. Gatti with moth- (2) action; testing DNA ty to the approximately er one and child for child; parties all month to with child’s care. assist disposi- would not be the DNA results Thereafter, Mr. Gatti visited with to child pertaining of the issues tive purchased child and items for the child’s support. care, formula, toys. including clothes and Results, addition, dated No- Test provid- In Gatti’s relatives Genetic Mr. 3, 2004, Mr. Gatti excluded baby items for the vember ed clothes Thereafter, biological father. baby from a the child’s including items received 30, 2004, Mr. ob- Mr. on November shower held Mr. Gatti’s mother. justice.” See Commonwealth sense of appellate “An substitute its one’s 5. court cannot Thus, 435, fact. judgment Champney, for that of the finder of 832 A.2d 574 Pa. may (citations omitted). court’s verdict we reverse the lower contrary it is to shock if so tained a Rule to Show toppel Cause on the in paternity actions is aimed at Hearing Motion for presently “achieving before this fairness as between par- them, Court. testimony by holding This Court heard ents both mother and arguments 11, prior on this to their January matter on conduct regarding of the child.” Id., at 532-33. Trial Opinion at 1-3. In v. Trojak, 95, 105-06, Jones 535 Pa.

¶ 6 The standard of review is set forth in 201, (1993), 634 A.2d this Court dis J.C., the case of supra. cussed the issue of estoppel where the Initially, we general note that “[o]ur mother of a sought support from a of appellate standard review in child husband, party, third not her whom she support matters is an abuse of discretion claimed was the father of the child: Blom, standard.” Bowser v. 569 Pa. [Ujnder circumstances, certain a per- (2002). 807 A.2d More- son might be estopped challeng- over, an abuse discretion is “[n]ot ing paternity person where that has merely an judgment, error of but if in by his or accepted her conduct given reaching a conclusion the law is overrid- person as the father of the child. den misapplied, or judgment or the ex- T.], John M. Paula 524 Pa. at [v. manifestly unreasonable, ercised is 571 A.2d at estoppel 1386. These partiality, prejudice, result of bias or cases princi- indicate that where the ill-will, as shown the evidence of rec- ple operative, blood tests ord,” then discretion has been abused. irrelevant, permit the law will not Id. a person in these situations chal- Id. lenge the which he or she status ¶ 7 As this case turns on the principle of However, previously accepted. Id. equitable estoppel, challenging as to pater- will not apply nity, the trial court relied on the principle when evidence establishes that the fa- Supreme announced our Court’s deci- ther accept the child as his failed Behers, sion in Fish v. 559 Pa. by holding oim support- out and/or (1999). There, Justice ing Castille the child. wrote: Fish, added). supra (emphasis at 723 MeCandless, In8 Freedman v. 539 Pa. 9 The underlying support for this doc- 584, 591-92, (1995), B., expounded we stat- trine is F. Ruth v. Robert (1997): ed: 456 Pa.Super. 690 A.2d 1171 Children; legitimacy; determination of Estoppel paternity in actions is mere- paternity ly legal the determination that because person’s of a (e.g., holding (a) conduct out it by Be enacted the Senate and own, the child as his supporting or the Representatives House of of the Com- child) person, regardless of his true Pennsylvania in monwealth of General status, will not be permitted met, Assembly it hereby and is enact- deny parentage, same, nor will the child’s by authority ed the That participated mother who has in its con- all legitimate children shall be irre- permitted duct be to sue a third party spective of the marital status of their for support, claiming that par- parents the third any every and in and case ty is the true father. As the Superior where the children are born out of observed, Court has the doctrine of es- they enjoy rights wedlock shall all the minority Opinions they years and in several privileges and as if had been al of aris- during par- paternity born such of presumption wedlock to rebut the ents, provided in except estop- marriage equitable otherwise of ing out and/or Title Pa.C.S. by on marriage of reliance pel outside

(b) prescribing pre- purposes testing For of tests or DNA blood before of by benefits to children born out wed- or sumption legitimacy by marriage of by, through lock and by and estoppel has been overcome clear any paternity by shall determined convincing evidence. followingways: one of the transcript, particularly From the (1) parents a child If of born testimony developed on cross-exami- was out wedlock have married of shall nation, had no appears Gatti serious each other. doubts about his of (2) during If lifetime of years required two until he almost was openly holds out father an amount of and he pay increased child to be his and receives the child people talking lack heard about child’s home, openly into his holds the transcript The at of resemblance him. provides sup- child out to be his and point develops this creation of doubt

port the child which shall be deter- and its various sources as follows: clear by convincing mined and evi- dence. Q. time particular that —at that Was

(3) convincing agreed there clear and was the amount to between the If evidence that the man was the you? two pri- the child which include a courts, no, it A. To the or court determination paternity. agreed. Prior to had—I went— we had M., 318-319, supra John A.2d at went, as being we had “we” I should (emphasis original). 1386-1387 agreement we say an so wouldn’t set—to highlighted portions of the above statute through system, go have to clearly apply the facts this case. again acknowledging thought then that I Id. at 1173. I child’s father. was the clearly spelled 10 As in Judge out Kel- Q. later file for like a modifi- Did she evidence, ly’s and Opinions, testimony something? cation of the amount or convincing law established clear A. Yes. evidence that were sections complied with establish Gatti’s Q. the outcome of that And what was earlier, by estoppel B.G. out pointed As action? particular did clear con- not establish money. got A. had more She vincing legal during the various fraudulently in- proceedings mother think Q. you start to Now when pa- acknowledge duced him to child’s you were not father?

ternity writing, agreed nor to enter an year year A. to about About Order, custody nor did support partial hearing other seeing a half I started required appeal take an proceed he to resemblance, and and the people talk custody suppori/partial from various just just the of the child qualities entry. sixty days of their Orders within family is. [sic] not there of what our minority majority adopt would various you? Q. the child look like rejected Did views which have been over sever- first, Nevertheless, at they time, A. I run believe but for first Mr. in strong Gatti, her bloodline that the father of in his Statement Matters Com- the children like look Geblers. plained of on raises an Appeal, issue of

Q. you by your misrepresentation Kelly What did doubts lead to fraud N. (hereinafter “Mother”).6 do? Specifi- Gebler cally, Mr. Gatti- avers that this my A. I Court had—me had fiancée in application talked about we erred of the just get it that would its if by because, it privately, estoppel done no one needs pursuant to know just being our well because to his mother allegations, induced him for was, way system the court and the into believing that was the child’s way paying, that I was support and, therefore, biological father he is not —the amounts, large it that would be worth estopped denying paternity from of the and, my just get while you this done child because he ceased to have contact know, just peace mind. with the the fraud child once was re- for

Q. Get what done? vealed. test, A. The DNA the first one. This that recognizes evidence of Q. you was the last time When saw equitable fraud is relevant to the Court’s the child? Specifically, analysis. puta- date, believe, A. I I The last saw this estopped tive father will not be day I got my child was the back DNA of a child when denying paternity fraud- paper, February which was had it —I putative ulent conduct that fa- induces 9th, February taken on so three weeks ther treating into his own. from there the end of February towards J.S., (Pa.Super.2003); J.C. v. A.2d 1 got I had the results back. And that (Pa.Su- Doran, Doran v. A.2d 1279 day was the last I’ve seen her. However, per.2003). there were neither added). T.T., 1/11/05, (emphasis at 15-16 allegations of fraudulent mother’s activi- appears testimony It from this ty nor fraud or misrepresen- evidence of appellant was influenced the support Specifically, tation in this case. Mr. people burden and the comments of present any Gatti failed to evidence to him, fiancée, including around his get misrepre- indicate that mother made a DNA test of the because he was sentation or a fraudulent utterance in- (DNA test), paying and “to this done get to act ducing Mr. Gatti as the child’s you know, just peace of mind.” No contrary, the credible To the transcript any allega- where is there she, reveals that testimony of mother tion of fraud or belief held either the Gatti, like that Mr. Mr. believed appellant mother or this was not a Transcript was the child’s father. relationship, child born out of their as was Hearing, Janu- Proceedings Motion clearly explicated findings in the Moreover, 11, 1005[sic], ary moth- trial judge. Support De Novo testimony er’s at the “would also like Hearing that she Opinion, 13 In her Supplemental filed know,” I have a done so do appellant’s after she DNA test received statement of was unaware pursuant matters further indicates that complained Pa. she 1925(b), biolog- R.A.P. not the child’s the court writes: Mr. Gatti was Kohan, 1925(b) party rectify preserve A cannot failure Order. Commonwealth by proffering response (Pa.Super.2003). an issue to a Rule Transcript ical Proceed- Hearing,

ings Support August De Novo 2004,

12, this Accordingly, at 3. Court any not find conduct on fraudulent to warrant part of mother sufficient

preclusion paternity of the doctrine of

by estoppel. Opinion

Trial Court 1-2. Pennsylvania, Finally, as enacted in Act on

the Uniform Blood Tests Deter- Paternity gives authority

mine courts paternity,

order blood tests where identity of

parentage or a child is rele- pater-

vant fact. Blood tests to determine 5104(c). §

nity, 23 Pa.C.S. Courts have deemed that

is not a factor relevant when voluntarily writing acknowl

edged paternity and entered into an Wacht

agreed support Order for the Ascero, v.

er Pa.Super. (1988), or when sought mother has prior custody

and received and support

Orders which determined aas law, Commonwealth ex rel. Cob

matter of Coburn,

urn Pa.Super. (1989).

A.2d 548 reasons, I For the above would

affirm the Order trial court. Marjorie

In re: H. WEIDNER a/k/a

Marjorie Ross, H. Deceased

Appeal of: Walter J. WEIDNER

Superior Pennsylvania.

Argued Nov. 2005.

Filed Feb.

Reargument April Denied

Case Details

Case Name: Gebler v. Gatti

Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Feb 2, 2006

Citation: 895 A.2d 1

Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.