Background
J-A07037-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WALTER WESEMAN A/K/A WALTER : PENNSYLVANIA WESEMAN, SR. : : : APPEAL OF: BALA LAW GROUP, LLC, : EXECUTRIX GRISSEL WESEMAN, : AND THE ESTATE OF WALTER : WESEMAN : No. 961 MDA 2025 Appeal from the Order Entered June 23, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County Orphans’ Court at No(s): OC077-2019 BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and NEUMAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY NEUMAN, J.: FILED JULY 23, 2026 Bala Law Group, LLC (“BLG”), Executrix Grissel Weseman (“Grissel” or “Executrix”), and the Estate of Walter Weseman (“the Estate”) (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the June 23, 2025 order confirming the first and final accounting of the Estate. Background The orphans’ court summarized the relevant facts and procedural background of this matter as follows: Decedent Walter Weseman (“Decedent”) died October 11, 2011, a resident of Susquehanna County. At the time of his death, Decedent had four children: Ingrid H. Weseman Gonzalez (“Ingrid”), Walter A. Weseman Licairac (“Ilka”), and Grissel…. Decedent’s Last Will and Testament was probated on December 1, 2011, and pursuant to its terms, Grissel was appointed as the executrix.
Background The orphans’ court summarized the relevant facts and procedural background of this matter as follows: Decedent Walter Weseman (“Decedent”) died October 11, 2011, a resident of Susquehanna County. At the time of his death, Decedent had four children: Ingrid H. Weseman Gonzalez (“Ingrid”), Walter A. Weseman Licairac (“Ilka”), and Grissel…. Decedent’s Last Will and Testament was probated on December 1, 2011, and pursuant to its terms, Grissel was appointed as the executrix. At the inception of the Estate, Grissel hired the law firm of Levene, Gouldin and Thompson (“LGT”), which has offices in both Montrose, Pennsylvania, and Binghamton, New York. Grissel filed an J-A07037-26 ancillary probate proceeding in Broome County, New York, and Letters Testamentary were granted to her in March 2012. At the time of his death, his son, Walter, was residing in a home owned by Decedent in Vestal, New York. Decedent also owned a home in … Bronx, New York, as well as real property and a home in Brackney, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.[1] Decedent’s will devised the Brackney property to his four children, left the Bronx property to his three daughters, and left his vehicles, machinery, tools, and personal property to Walter, and the rest, residue, and … remainder of his estate to all of his children. At the time … the will was drafted, under the terms of the will, the Vestal property became part of the Estate residuary. The Vestal property had a mortgage associated with it.
The Court’s Holding
conclusion to the Estate administration, the end result was the opposite — a highly contested litigation involving primarily two questions: (1) the appropriate compensation for the executrix; and (2) the appropriate compensation for Estate counsel. The efforts of … Objector[s] resulted in the Estate[’s] recovering over $70,000 that had been lost due to the executrix’s mismanagement and negligence, as well as a reduction in the attorneys’ fees to a rate that was reasonable for this geographic area. Thus, Objector[s’] counsel was able to create a corpus of monies being returned to the Estate that was more than adequately [sic] to reasonably compensate Objector[s’] counsel, as well as continuing to allow for the Estate to have more funds than it would have had but for the objections. Thus, Objector[s] w[ere] the primary impetus for the final resolution of the administration of this Estate and … Objector[s’] – 53 – J-A07037-26 successfully recouping substantial sums for the Estate through [their] objections. Given these circumstances, it was equitable and proper to require the Estate to pay Objector[s’] attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in obtaining a final administration of the Estate and in recovering monies that should not have been paid out of the Estate’s coffers. OCO III at 9-10 (cleaned up; emphasis in original).
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- conclusion to the Estate administration, the end result was the opposite — a highly contested litigation involving primarily two questions: (1) the appropriate compensation for the executrix; and (2) the appropriate compensation for Estate counsel.
- The efforts of … Objector[s] resulted in the Estate[’s] recovering over $70,000 that had been lost due to the executrix’s mismanagement and negligence, as well as a reduction in the attorneys’ fees to a rate that was reasonable for this geographic area.
- Thus, Objector[s’] counsel was able to create a corpus of monies being returned to the Estate that was more than adequately [sic] to reasonably compensate Objector[s’] counsel, as well as continuing to allow for the Estate to have more funds than it would have had but for the objections.
Why It Matters
Superior Court affirms fee reductions and fiduciary surcharges in a prolonged estate administration Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.