IN RE: ESTATE OF CLARENCE A. WARDEN, DECEASED APPEAL OF: CHARLES LEMENESTREL & GENEVIEVE LEMENESTREL-MANAS

IN RE: ESTATE OF CLARENCE A. WARDEN, DECEASED APPEAL OF: CHARLES LEMENESTREL & GENEVIEVE LEMENESTREL-MANAS No. 1231 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 121 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/9/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered March 16, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Orphan’s No.: 405 of 1958
Before: BOWES, OTT, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellants, Charles LeMenestrel and Genevieve LeMenestrel-Manas (“Appellants”), appeal from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, which overruled their objections to the accounting and denied their claim for imposition of a surcharge on the Trustees, William G. Warden III (“Warden III”) and Wachovia Bank, N.A. (“Wachovia”) (collectively, “Trustees”). We hold that under these facts, Trustees acted in good faith and did not engage in intentionally dishonest behavior. Finally, we hold that under the facts of this case, acquiescence and laches bars Appellants’ claims. Accordingly, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NOLAN ANTOSZYK

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NOLAN ANTOSZYK No. 689 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 232 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 12/2/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered April 11, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal No: CP-02-CR-0009936-2005
Before: BOWES, FREEDBERG, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the order entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the suppression motion filed by Appellee, Nolan Antoszyk. The Commonwealth contends an affidavit that includes material misstatements from a confidential informant should not render inadmissible evidence obtained from a warrant approved on the basis of the faulty affidavit. Because the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply in Pennsylvania, we hold that the trial court properly suppressed the evidence obtained solely through the deliberate misstatements the informant admittedly made to the affiant. In so holding, we conclude that this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Bradshaw, 434 A.2d 181 (Pa. Super. 1981), was abrogated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374, 586 A.2d 887 (1991), and we adopt the lead opinion from this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Clark, 602 A.2d 1323 (Pa. Super. 1992) (plurality). Accordingly, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here