Full Opinion

J-S21020-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN RE: ESTATE OF LAURA D. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CERRACCHIO : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: DAVID ZUKOWSKI : : : : : No. 1501 MDA 2025 Appeal from the Order Entered October 1, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County Orphans' Court at No(s): 202507467 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 27, 2026 Appellant, David Zukowski, appeals pro se from the order entered on October 1, 2025, which denied his petition to remove Charles Aliano, Esquire (“Attorney Aliano”) as the administrator of the Estate of Laura D. Cerracchio (“Estate”). We affirm. The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts and procedural posture of this case: [Attorney Aliano] was appointed as Administrator D.B.N.C.T.A. of the Estate following a hearing by [the trial court] held on February 20, 2025. [Attorney] Aliano is an experienced attorney practicing law in Susquehanna County, [Pennsylvania]. Appellant filed a Petition to Remove Attorney Aliano (“Petition”) as the personal representative of the Estate on August 18, 2025, and a hearing was held on September 29, 2025. Appellant is the father of the four beneficiaries of the Estate. The beneficiaries are Anne Zukowski, Zackary Zukowski, Joshua Zukowski, and Cristian Zukowski. They are also the J-S21020-26 children of the decedent, Laura D. Cerracchio (“Decedent”). Appellant is the ex-husband of the Decedent. The Decedent died on May 13, 2023. The known Estate assets included real property with a house thereon located in Susquehanna County[]; a natural gas lease on the real property that pays a monthly royalty; miscellaneous personal property located in the Decedent’s house; firearms; a Cadillac Escalade; a Chevrolet Silverado truck; and a trailer. There was testimony at the February 20, 2025 hearing of at least one or two other vehicles that the Decedent’s sons were using, but it appeared the parties agreed they belonged to the sons(s) who drove them. The Cadillac, the Chevy truck and the trailer were all located at Anne Zukowski’s residence in Maryland since prior to Decedent’s death. There was also a Worker’s Compensation claim that the Decedent had pending in the State of New Jersey. Finally, Decedent had an IRA, in which she named the four [] children as equal beneficiaries. The previous Co-Executors, Anne Zukowski and Zackary Zukowski, signed paperwork for distribution of the IRA and the proceeds were distributed equally to the four [] children. Zackary Zukowski also opened an initial Estate checking account. A proposed sale of the Cadillac and Chevy truck was arranged by the prior Co-Executors, but fell through. The three [] sons of Decedent were living with her in her home on the real property at the time of her death, and have continued to do so to the date of the hearing on September 29, 2025. Appellant is a creditor to the Estate. He alleges he performed various work at Decedent’s residence after her death at the request of one of the Co-Executors at the time, Zackary Zukowski. That work, and the bills for the time and materials sought by Appellant, were contested by Anne Zukowski at the time of the February 20, 2025 hearing. Appellant has since submitted those bills and additional bills to Attorney Aliano for payment by the Estate, according to testimony at the September 29, 2025 hearing. Since the time of his appointment, Attorney Aliano arranged for the sale of the Cadillac, the Chevy truck and the trailer. The proceeds were placed in an Estate checking account opened by Attorney Aliano. He also had various firearms -2- J-S21020-26 appraised with the assistance of Decedent’s sons, and an appraisal was done for the real property. Attorney Aliano arranged for a dumpster to be delivered to the real property for Decedent’s sons to throw out garbage and other things they did not want at the residence. He also contacted the natural gas company regarding the royalties, which are now being held in escrow by the gas company since the notification of [the Decedent’s] death. Those funds are to be released and future payments are to re-start when the Estate is finalized, or when there is an agreement as to who will be the new beneficiaries of the gas lease royalties. Attorney Aliano had Decedent’s mail forwarded to a Montrose, [Pennsylvania] post office box for him to receive her mail. After doing so, he received a mailing from JPMorgan Chase addressed to the Decedent. Although this may pertain to an account the Decedent no longer had an interest in at her death, Attorney Aliano sent a letter following up on behalf of the Estate and is awaiting more information. Attorney Aliano also contacted the New Jersey attorney handling the Worker’s Compensation matter and obtained a current status update. Attorney Aliano received a letter of a possible code violation at the real property as the Decedent may not have applied for a building permit for some ongoing work done at her house prior to her death. Attorney Aliano forwarded that letter to Appellant to review with Decedent’s sons, since they may have more information on what the Decedent was doing. Decedent’s sons also had advised Attorney Aliano that they wanted to retain the real property for themselves. Finally, Attorney Aliano had various discussions with the beneficiaries and with Appellant in an attempt to resolve issues within the Estate by agreement. At the hearing, the four beneficiaries seemingly agreed to several things. They agreed Decedent’s sons would receive title to the real property in exchange for paying Anne Zukowski her one-quarter [] share of the appraised value of $97,000, coming to $24,250. There was some discussion at the hearing that Attorney Aliano would prepare a deed and schedule a closing for all to attend once Decedent’s sons had the necessary funds to purchase. -3- J-S21020-26 There was also an agreement as to the sale proceeds of some of the firearms sold for $2,000, and that the overall appraisal of the firearms was acceptable to the beneficiaries. The four beneficiaries indicated at the hearing that they believed they could agree to decide who would keep certain firearms that were not sold. Appellant [] requested the removal of Attorney Aliano as personal representative. Decedent’s three sons indicated they joined in and agreed with Appellant’s Petition. Anne Zukowski was not in agreement with Appellant’s Petition. Trial Court Opinion, 7/14/26, at 1-5 (citations omitted). Within Appellant’s petition, Appellant requested that the trial court remove Attorney Aliano as administrator because: the Decedent appointed Appellant to be the executor of her will; there exists a conspiracy amongst the judges and elected officials of Susquehanna County “to rule against [Appellant];” Attorney Aliano “lack[s] the physical and mental capacity to be a personal representative of the Estate;” Attorney Aliano “failed to do his fiduciary duties as the representative of the [Estate];” Attorney Aliano “stat[ed] that he [would] only pay for one dumpster for the removal of construction debris and other debris from the estate, when more than one [was] required;” Attorney Aliano “is guilty of theft of service by deception or threat;” Attorney Aliano refused to provide “an accounting of the estate finances, and other administrative doings, monthly;” Attorney Aliano took “estate funds and put them in [] his own account;” Attorney Aliano “has continually harassed the heirs;” and, Attorney Aliano “had the mail [to certain heirs] stopped and rerouted to his post office box.” Appellant’s Petition, 8/18/25, at 1-4. -4- J-S21020-26 On September 29, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on Appellant’s petition and, on October 1, 2025, the trial court denied Appellant’s petition. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.1 Appellant raises the following claims on appeal: 1. Did the lower court err in denying the removal of [Attorney Aliano] as Personal Representative despite clear evidence of his incapacity, physical disabilities, and failure to fulfill fiduciary duties? 2. Did the lower court err in appointing [Attorney Aliano] as Personal Representative without proper vetting and despite his known incapacity and prior health issues? 3. Did the lower court err in allowing [Attorney Aliano] to remain as Personal Representative despite evidence of misconduct, including unauthorized removal of estate assets and failure to provide accounting? 4. Did the lower court violate due process and procedural fairness by permitting ex-parte communications between the Personal Representative and the judge, and by issuing a denial order without explanation? 5. Did the lower court err in ignoring evidence of coercion, extortion, defamation, and ethical violations by [Attorney Aliano] toward the petitioner and heirs? 6. Did the lower court err by failing to uphold the decedent’s testamentary intent as expressed in the valid Last Will and Testament appointing D.Z. as Executor without bond? ____________________________________________ 1 See Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(5) (declaring “[a]n appeal may be taken as of right from the following orders of the Orphans’ Court Division: . . . (5) An order determining the status of fiduciaries . . . in an estate”); Pa.R.A.P. 342 Note (“an order removing or refusing to remove a fiduciary is an immediately appealable order”). -5- J-S21020-26 7. Did the lower court err in denying removal of [Attorney Aliano] despite his admitted prior public censure for violating professional conduct rules, indicating a pattern of misconduct incompatible with fiduciary duties? 8. Did the trial judge abuse his discretion by denying the petition to remove [Attorney Aliano] while acknowledging the executor’s inaction and malfeasance, in hope of a quick resolution? 9. Did the lower court violate its duty to protect the estate, heirs, and creditors by allowing a demonstrably incompetent Personal Representative to remain in control of the estate administration? 10. Did the lower court err in denying removal despite evidence of criminal conduct by [Attorney Aliano], including unauthorized transfer of estate funds to his personal account? 11. Did the lower court judge violate his judicial oath and ethical responsibilities by denying removal of [Attorney Aliano] despite clear evidence of ongoing misconduct and criminal behavior? 12. Did the lower court err in allowing influence or bias by court officials with prior conflicts involving the petitioner, leading to an unfair and prejudiced adjudication? Appellant’s Brief at 4-6. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable David J. Williamson. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for the reasons expressed in Judge Williamson’s well-reasoned July 14, 2026 opinion. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Williamson’s able opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court -6- J-S21020-26 addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Williamson’s July 14, 2026 opinion.2 Order affirmed. Appellant’s “Emergency Application for Leave to File a Supplemental Reply Brief Contra Appellee’s Unlawful Introduction of Out-of- Record Evidence” Granted. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/27/2026 ____________________________________________ 2 In arriving at our decision, we considered Appellant’s “Supplemental Reply Brief to Appellee’s Non-Conforming Submission.” -7- Circulated 09/21/2026 01:55 PM RE[CURDED COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY/14/2M26_2133;53] FE · WEI'Y ZAP0IL.SK THIRTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT cm15it«sfizilos COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SISRUEHANA URL[TY Penny]ysni: ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION Inst AZ"""dos3s9 INRE: : NO. 2023-48--0.C. ESTATE OF LAURA D. CERRACCHIO : PA.R.A.P. 1925(a) PA.RA.P, 1925(2) OPINION This matter was remanded on June 16, 2026 for the trial court to issue a 1925(a) opinion within forty-five (45) days of the date of the remand by the Superior Court. This Opinion is submitted as to the reasoning for the October l, 2025 Order denying Appellant David Zukowski's Petition to. remove Charles Aliano, Esquire as the personal representative of the Estate of Laura D. Cerracchio ("Estate"). A hearing on Appellant's Petition was held on September 29, 2025. The undersigned presided as a specially presiding Judge from the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas due to a full-bench recusal of the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas. FACTUAL FINDINGS Charles Aliano, Esquire was appointed as Administrator D.B.N.C,T.A. of the Estate following a hearing by this court held on February 20, 2025. Mr. Aliano is ah experienced attorney practicing law in Susquehanna County, PA. Appellant filed a Petition to Remove Attorney Aliano ("Petition") as the personal representative of the Estate on August 18, 2025, and a hearing was held on September 29, 2025. Appellant is the father of the four beneficiaries of the Estate. The beneficiaries are Anne Zukowski, Zackary Zukowski, Joshua Zukowski, and Cristian Zukowski. They are also the children of the decedent, Laura D. Cerracchio ("Decedent"). Appellant is the ex- husband of the Decedent. The Decedent died on May 13, 2023. The known Estate assets included real property with a house thereon located in Susquehanna County, PA; a natural gas lease on the real property that pays a monthly royalty; miscellaneous personal property located in the Decedent's house; firearms; a Cadillac Escalade; a Chevrolet Silverado truck; and a trailer. (N.T. Feb. 20, 2025). There was testimony at the February 20, 2025 hearing of at least one or two other vehicles that the Decedent's sons were using, but it appeared the patties agreed they belonged to the sons(s) who drove them. (N.T. Feb. 20, 2025). The Cadillac, the Chevy truck and the trailer were all located at Anne Zukowski's residence in Maryland since prior to Decedent's death. (N.T. Feb. 20, 2025). There was also a Worker's Compensation claim that the Decedent had pending in the State of New Jersey. (N.T. Sept. 29, 2025 p. 48-49). Finally, Decedent had an IRA, in which she named the four (4) children as equal beneficiaries. The previous _Co-Executors, Anne .., Zukowski and Zackary Zukowski signed paperwork for distribution of the IRA and the proceeds· were distributed equally to the four (4) children. (N.T. Feb. 20, 2025). Zackary Zukowski also opened an initial Estate checking account. (N.T. Sept. 29, 2025, p. 47). A proposed sale of the Cadillac and Chevy truck was arranged by the prior Co-Executors, but fell through. (N.T. Feb. 20, 2025). The three (3) sons of Decedent were living with her in her home on the real property 2 at the time of her death, and have continued to do so to the date of the hearing on September 29, 2025. (N.T. Feb. 20, 2025; N.T. Sept. 29, 2025 pp 50-59). Appellant is a creditor to the Estate (N.T. Sept. 29, 2025 pp. 25-28; 36-37). He alleges he performed various work at Decedent's residence after her death at the request of one of the Co-Executors at the time, Zackary Zukowski. (Id.) That work, and the bills for the time and materials sought by Appellant, were contested by Anne Zukowski at the time of the February 20, 2025 hearing. (N.T. Feb. 20, 2025). Appellant has since submitted those bills and additional bills to Attorney Aliano for payment by the Estate, according to testimony at the September 29, 2025 hearing. (N.T. Sept. 29, 2025, pp. 25-28; 36-37). Since the time of his appointment, Attorney Aliano arranged for the sale of the Cadillac, the Chevy truck and the trailer. (N.T. Sept. 29, 2025 pp. 47-48). The proceeds were placed in an Estate checking account opened by Attorney Aliano. (ld. p. 47). He also had various firearms appraised with the assistance of Decedent's sons, and an appraisal was done for the real property. (Id, pp. 47; 51-52; 63-66). Attorney Aliano arranged for a dumpster to be delivered to the real property for Decedent's sons to throw out garbage and other things they did ' not want at the residence. (Id. at p. 38 and 47). He also contacted the natural gas company, regarding the royalties, which are now being held in escrow by the gas company since the notification of Laura Cerracchio's death. (Id. p. 46; 56). Those funds are to be released and future payments are to re-start when the Estate is finalized, or when there is an agreement as to who will be the new beneficiaries of the gas lease royalties. (Id.) Attorney Aliano had Decedent's mail forwarded to a Montrose, PA post office box for him to receive her mail. (Id p. 49). After doing so, he received a mailing from JPMorgan Chase addressed to the Decedent. (Id. pp. 49-50). Although this may pertain to an 3 account the Decedent no longer had an interest in at her death, Attorney Aliano sent a letter following up on behalf of the Estate and is awaiting more information. (Id. pp. 49-50; 60-63). Attorney Aliano also contacted the New Jersey attorney handling the Worker's Compensation matter and obtained a current status update. (Id. pp. 48-49). Attorney Aliano received a letter of a possible code violation at the real property as the Decedent may not have applied for a building permit for some ongoing work done at her house prior to her death. (Id. p. 50). Attorney Aliano forwarded that letter to Appellant to review with Decedent's sons, since they may have more information on what the Decedent was doing. (Id.) Decedent's sons also had advised Attorney Aliano that they wanted to retain the real property for themselves. (Id. pp. 50-52). Finally, Attorney Aliano had various discussions with the beneficiaries and with Appellant in an attempt to resolve issues within the Estate by agreement. (Id. pp. 22, 39, 52 and 57). %.5,, At the hearing, the four beneficiaries seemingly agreed to several things. They agreed Decedent's sons would receive title to the real property in exchange for paying Anne Zukowski her one-quarter (1/4) share of the appraised value of $97,000, coming to $24,250. NT, pp. 52-56). There was some discussion at the hearing that Attorney Aliano would prepare a deed and schedule a closing for all to attend once Decedent's sons had the necessary funds to purchase. QN.T, pp. 57-58). There was also an agreement as to the sale proceeds of some of the firearms sold for $2,000, and that the overall appraisal of the firearms was acceptable to the beneficiaries. (N.T. pp. 65-68). The four beneficiaries indicated at the hearing that they believed they could agree to decide who would keep certain firearms that were not sold. (N.T. 67-68). 4 Appellant has requested the removal of Attorney Aliano as personal representative. Decedent's three sons indicated they joined in and agreed with Appellant's Petition. (Id. p. 2 and 45). Anne Zukowski was not in agreement with Appellant's Petition. (Id. p. 3). DISCUSSION Grounds for removal of a personal representative are as follows: $ 3182. Grounds for removal. The court shall have exclusive power to remove a personal representative when he: (1) is wasting or mismanaging the estate, is or is likely to become insolvent, or has failed to perform any duty imposed by law; or (2) (Deleted by amendment). (3) has become incapacitated to discharge the duties of his office because ofsickness or physical or mental incapacity and his incapacity is likely to continue to the injury of the estate; or (4) has removed from the Commonwealth or has ceased to have a known place of residence therein, without furnishing such security or additional security as the court shall direct; or (4.1) has been.charged with voluntary manslaughter or homicide, except homicide by vehicle, as set forth in sections 3155 (relating to persons entitled) and 3156 (relating to persons not qualified), provided that the removal shall not occur on these grounds if the charge has been dismissed, withdrawn or terminated by a verdict of not guilty; or (5) when, for any other reason, the interests of the estate are likely to be jeopardized by his continuance in office. 20Pa. C.S.A. Section 3182. 5 The trial court acts within its discretion in appointing an executor. In re Estate of Andrews, 92 A.3d 1226 (Pa. Super. 2014.). The removal of an executor is also within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be disturbed on appeal upon a finding of an abuse of that discretion. In re Estate of Mumma, 41 A.3d 41 (Pa, Super. 2012). The removal of a personal representative is a drastic action, which should only be taken when an estate is endangered and intervention is necessary to protect property of the estate. In re Pitone's Estate, 413 A.2d 1012 (Pa. Super. 1980). The grounds for removal of a personal representative of an estate were not met, based on the evidence at time of the hearing on the Petition. There was no showing that Attorney Aliano was wasting or mismanaging the Estate, that the Estate was likely to become insolvent, or that he failed to perform any duty imposed by law. There was also insufficient proof that the interests of the Estate were likely to be jeopardized by Attorney Aliano's continued position as personal representative. Finally, there was no showing that Attorney Aliano was unable to discharge the duties of the office, that he had removed himself from living in the Commonwealth, or that he was charged with a crime. In the approximate six ( 6) month period that Attorney Aliano served as Executor prior to the Appellant's Petition being filed, he sold the vehicles, the trailer, and certain firearms. Attorney Aliano helped obtain an agreement of the beneficiaries on the real property. He investigated the Worker's Compensation case, the gas royalty payments and any interest of the Estate in a JPMorgan Chase account. Attorney Aliano also had various discussions with Appellant and the beneficiaries on trying to resolve the Estate by family agreement. The vehicles and trailer were promptly sold and proceeds placed into an estate checking account opened by Attorney Aliano. Attorney Aliano was credible in his testimony 6 that the Cadillac was sold within Kelly Blue Book value, and the Chevy truck for slightly less than Kelly Blue Book value. He testified this was despite issues with both vehicles, including the need for some repairs to both vehicles and that the engine warning lights were activated in the Chevy truck. Attorney Aliano arranged for the appraisal of the Decedent's firearms, and sold the ones that the beneficiaries did not want to retain. This was done through a licensed gun shop. Attorney Aliano received and reviewed an appraisal on the real property, and an agreemerit was reached as to a buy-out of Anne Zukowski's share by the other three beneficiaries. The unresolved issues were being monitored by Attorney Aliano and/or in discussion with the beneficiaries. The Worker's Compensation case in New Jersey had a Court status conference date scheduled in November 2025, and Attorney Aliano was in communication st with the New Jersey attorney representing Decedent's interests in the case. Attorney Aliano followed up on the status of the gas lease, which needed an agreement of the beneficiaries, and/or transfer of the real property in order to resume payments now that the gas company had been notified of Decedent's death, Attorney Aliano followed up with due diligence on the JPMorgan Chase account after notification of its existence, even though the Estate may not be a beneficiary or entitled to anything from that account. Attorney Aliano also exercised due diligence to attempt to.confirm there was no inheritance tax due on the IRA due to Decedent's death. Attorney Aliano also attempted to address Appellant's claim for payment from the Estate for work performed at the real property after Decedent's death. This was work approved by only one Co-Executor at the time, Zackary Zukowski, but contested by Anne Zukowski. Attorney Aliano attempted to see if the beneficiaries and Appellant could come to an 7 agreement on a payment to Appellant from the Estate. In the meantime, Appellant was demanding payment from Attorney Aliano as Executor. All of these steps taken as Executor by Attorney Aliano were prudent and reasonable under the circumstances. There was an objection by a beneficiary to Appellant's bills. Attorney Aliano was not the one who had authorized the work done by Appellant. The bills pertained to real property in which three of four beneficiaries lived in and wanted to keep. This is clearly a contested issue by the beneficiaries and Attorney Aliano was trying to resolve it without future litigation. There was no waste, or mismanagement, or other harm to the Estate by Attorney Aliano's actions. We found Attorney Aliano credible as to the actions he took on behalf of the Estate, Appellant had a lot to say about the Susquehanna County Court system and the appointment of Attorney Aliano as Executor. However, this Court set that aside and only considered what Attorney Aliano had done, or not done, since the time of his appointment. It is noted first that Appellant is a creditor to the Estate. As such, while he has standing to address issues pertaining to his direct claims for bills allegedly owed, he has no standing to contest other matters of the Estate, Although Appellant is the father of the beneficiaries, he is not an interested party beyond the issue of his standing as a creditor. Although Decedent's three sons verbally acknowledged at the hearing that they joined in Appellant's Petition to remove the personal representative, Appellant neither represents those other beneficiaries, nor is he able to raise issues that they as beneficiaries may raise. The Appellant provided his testimony, some of which was based on hearsay, about the activities and actions of Attorney Aliano that had nothing to do with the bills to the Estate that Appellant wants paid. Appellant is not an attorney. He was . . representing his own interests pro se and he was unable to represent the interests of any other 8 beneficiary. Therefore, the Court was not bound to consider anything other than Appellant's claims with regard to his bills. Appellant contends that Attorney Aliano would not pay his bills as submitted, resulting in a breach of his duty as Executor. However, as was noted at the hearing held on . February 20, 2025, and this court's subsequent Opinion and Order, · ·»,, Appellant only sought approval of one Co-Executor, Zackary Zukowski, for the work he did at the real property. Anne Zukowski, the other Co-Executor, had not been consulted for approval. Anne Zukowski also contested those bills as a beneficiary at the February 20, 2025 hearing. That position did not appear to have changed. Attorney Aliano had not paid the bills and was trying to obtain a family settlement agreement of everyone on that issue and on the overall Estate. That was a reasonable and allowable stance to take. An executor in that situation can elect to pay or not pay the bills of a creditor and seek approval by way of an accounting in which parties can file objections for the Orphans' Court to consider; or file a motion requesting the Orphans' Court decide the issue following a hearing; or obtain a family settlement agreement covering all parties. We found that Attorney Aliano's actions were reasonable in delaying payment to Appellant until a family settlement agreement was reached or entry of a court order following submission of an accounting and proposed distribution, since Anne Zukowski was objecting to the bills. Appellant seems to think that because this Court previously indicated that some of his work appeared reasonable and necessary in a prior Opinion and Order and/or Court hearing, that it was a blanket approval for Attorney Aliano to pay all of Appellant's bills. However, as was noted in the same prior Opinion and Order and at the prior Court hearing, Anne Zukowsi objected, in part because she. was not consulted as Co-Executor prior to work . being done. The 9 Court had not made a ruling one way or the other on the issue, and an executor has an obligation to try and resolve the issue, or have the court make a determination. Appellant's other chief complaints about Attorney Aliano as effecting him as a creditor to the Estate, was Appellant's perception that Attorney Aliano is somehow biased against him, and that Attorney Aliano had ex parte contact with the Court. There was no evidence submitted that Attorney Aliano is biased as to Appellant other than Appellant's general claim of bias against him by the Susquehanna Court of Common Pleas and other individuals, that Attorney Aliano was the District Attorney of Susquehanna County prior to the current Susquehanna County President Judge, and that he was the Judge's mentor in that office. These general allegations are insufficient to support a showing of bias. There was also no showing of ·, harm to the Estate by ex parte contact with the Court, if any. To alleviate any concerns as to the Court, a recusal was entered by this Court upon Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Appellant on that separate issue. The other matters raised by Appellant are issues to which he has no standing as a creditor, but will be discussed in order to address all claims, and because Decedent's three sons verbally indicated they joined in Appellant's Petition, even though they did not file a petition themselves. Appellant takes issue with the fact that Attorney Aliano did not already dced the house to Decedent's three sons and re-start the royalty payments, .which he believed should have been resolved "within a month or two." (N.T. Sept. 29, 2025 pp 44-45). However, it was necessary to get an appraisal on the real property, since the Decedent's three sons were interested in keeping it. The beneficiaries and Attorney Aliano also had some meetings to discuss distribution of the real property. But, it was unclear in the September 29, 2025 testimony as to exactly. when or what was discussed at all of those meetings about the real property. However, 10 .' Appellant agreed that a meeting was held as recently as August 6, 2025 with all of the beneficiaries and Attorney Aliano, in which the amount to be paid to Anne Zukowski for her interest in the real property was discussed and agreed. Appellant then filed his Petition less than two weeks later. It is the job of an executor to have a deed prepared and convey real property to be sold when the buyers are prepared to meet and exchange the proceeds for the deed. As of the date of the hearing on September 29, 2025, the Decedent's sons had not yet indicated they had the proceeds in hand and were ready to close, until the Court questioned all four beneficiaries specifically about this and they reached an agreement on the record. (Id. at pp. 50-57). There was no harm to the Estate shown by Appellant for these alleged actions or inactions of Mr. Aliano. It is also noted that Decedent's sons had been living at the real property since the date of Decedent's death, and while they were paying bills on the real property (other than Appellant's bills), they were not paying any rent to the Estate. The Decedent's sons were in a position to both enjoy the real property and see to the upkeep and preservation of the real property such that there was no harm to the Estate by any delay in deeding the title. Furthermore, until Decedent's sons indicated they had the funds and were ready to close on the purchase, Attorney Aliano had no duty to produce a signed deed. Finally, the royalty payments from the gas company were held in escrow and would be paid out upon final direction from the Estate and the beneficiaries, such that there was no loss to the Estate. This would be done as soon as the parties came to a signed agreement, or recorded a deed with a clause about the royalties, or an order of court was entered after an accounting. ·.- Appellant also took issue with the price received in the sale of Decedent's vehicles. However, Attorney Aliano was credible in his testimony that the one vehicle sold within the Kelly Blue Book value, and the other for slightly under Kelly Blue Book value due to II needed repairs. Appellant offered no convincing evidence, other than his own opinion, that the ' vehicles could have sold for more than the $33,000 and $30,000 received by the Estate. Therefore, there was no hann to the Estate or mismanagement of Estate assets proven by Appellant in the sale of the vehicles. Appellant claimed the Estate should have done something to fix a wire ripped off the Decedent's house at some point after Decedent's death by· a utility truck, while Decedent's sons were living at the real property. Appellant also performed a temporary repair of the wire for which he seeks reimbursement. Under the circumstances, with Decedent's sons living at the real property, not paying rent, and intending to keep it themselves, it. was not unreasonable or a mismanagement of Estate assets for the Executor to fail to address these concerns of Appellant. Furthermore, Appellant and/or certain beneficiaries could have filed an objection to a final a account on this issue as it pertained to their interest, since it was disagreement about who should be responsible for the repair, and not waste or mismanagement of the Estate. A similar issue was raised by Appellant concerning notice of a code violation at the real property as a result of work performed by a contractor hired by Decedent prior to her death. Appellant believes Attorney Aliano should have addressed this and handled it on behalf of the Estate. Mr. Aliano sent the notice to Appellant to review with Decedent's sons, expecting them to address it since they planned to keep the real property. The actions were insufficient to meet the requirements to remove a personal representative. Appellant took issue with Attorney Aliano inquiring with the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue on whether or not any additional inheritance tax was due because of the IRA distribution. Appellant contends Attorney Aliano's inquiry was unnecessary because the Department of Revenue had already determined no inheritance tax was due. Attorney Aliano 12 was trying to confirm that fact so it would not be an issue for the Estate. This was a reasonable and prudent action since Attorney Aliano was not involved with the Estate at the time of the IRA distribution. Appellant next complained about Attorney Aliano making comments about the prior Co-Executors to employees at the gun shop where the firearms were taken for an appraisal. Attorney Aliano stated something about how the prior Co-Executors must have made the Judge angry. Appellant believes it was a derogatory comment and harmful to the beneficiaries. Attorney Aliano admitted to the comment as trying to be a little funny. (