In Re: Est. of C.I.S., Appeal of: A.S.

J-A20003-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ESTATE OF CARLOS IGNACIO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

SANCHEZ, DECEASED : PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: ALICIA SANCHEZ :

:

:

:

: No. 66 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered October 29, 2024

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Orphans’ Court at

No(s): C-48-OC-2023-0445

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2025

Alicia Sanchez (Appellant), the daughter of Ignacio Sanchez (Decedent),

appeals from the orphans’ court’s order granting the petition (petition) filed

by Decedent’s widow, Anga Abouelsaad (Ms. Abouelsaad), which sought to

appeal the grant of probate, declare that Decedent died intestate, and appoint

Ms. Abouelsaad as administratrix of Decedent’s estate. The orphans’ court’s

order further granted Ms. Abouelsaad a spousal share of the Decedent’s

estate, and granted Decedent’s surviving children from prior relationships,

Appellant, Flora Pagan (Flora), Frances Sanchez (Frances), and Annelis

Sanchez (Annelis), equal one-eighth shares of Decedent’s estate. Finally, the

orphans’ court’s order revoked the existing letters testamentary issued to

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

J-A20003-25

Appellant, and issued letters of administration to Ms. Abouelsaad. After

careful review, we affirm the orphans’ court’s order.

The orphans’ court’s findings of fact provide the history underlying the

instant appeal. Decedent was born in April 1955 and died on November 10,

2022. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FFCL), 10/29/24, ¶ 10.

Decedent married Ms. Abouelsaad on May 9, 2014. Id. ¶ 16. Decedent is

survived by his four children from prior relationships. Id. ¶ 17.

Until his death, Decedent resided at property located at 230 Vista Drive,

Easton, Pennsylvania (the property). Id. ¶ 1. As found by the orphans’ court,

Decedent was the sole owner of the property. [Ms.] Abouelsaad

has resided at the property since May 2017. … [Ms.] Abouelsaad

was living at the property with Decedent at the time of his death.

On May 17, 2019, Decedent filed a complaint for divorce against

[Ms.] Abouelsaad. No divorce decree was issued. … [Previously,

on] May 7, 2019, [Ms.] Abouelsaad filed a petition for Emergency

Protection from Abuse (PFA) against Decedent for pointing a gun

at [Ms.] Abouelsaad. The PFA [proceeding] was dismissed on

November 22, 2019[,] when [Ms.] Abouelsaad did not appear for

the final hearing. N.T.[, 4/8/24], at 53; see Order to Dismiss,

Abouelsaad v. Sanchez, C-48-PF-2019-636 (C.P. Northampton

Co. Nov. 22, 2019).

The Commonwealth filed criminal charges against Decedent for

the incident relating to [Ms.] Abouelsaad’s PFA petition.

[Ms.] Abouelsaad testified that the only time Decedent was not

residing at the property was during the pendency of the PFA in

2019. During that time, Decedent lived in New York.

….

On September 7, 2021, Appellant filed a petition for guardianship

of Decedent with the Orphans’ Court. [No action was taken on

the petition.]

-2-

J-A20003-25

On July 20, 2022, [Ms. Abouelsaad’s daughter from a prior

relationship] filed a … PFA [petition] against Decedent. The PFA

was dismissed on August 3, 2022[,] when [Ms. Abouelsaad’s

daughter] did not appear for the final hearing.

Id. ¶¶ 20-27, 29-32 (paragraph numbers and most citations omitted;

paragraph formatting modified).

In addition, “Decedent also had a partner, Myriam Cruz ([Ms.] Cruz).

[Ms.] Abouelsaad did not know [Ms.] Cruz was Decedent’s partner until after

[his] death.” Id. ¶¶ 18-19.

Following Decedent’s death, on February 13, 2023, Appellant filed an

ejectment action to remove Ms. Abouelsaad and her adult daughter from the

property. Id. ¶ 1. About a month later, on March 16, 2023, Appellant

submitted a will, purportedly executed by Decedent, for probate. The will

named Appellant as executor and Decedent’s sole heir. Id. ¶ 4. The

Northampton County Register of Wills issued an order admitting the will to

probate and granting letters testamentary to Appellant. Id. ¶ 3.

On March 20, 2023, Ms. Abouelsaad filed a counterclaim in the

ejectment action, alleging that the deed purportedly transferring the property

to Appellant is a forgery. Id. ¶ 5. On September 1, 2023, Ms. Abouelsaad

filed the instant petition. Id. ¶ 6. Ms. Abouelsaad alleged that the will

presented by Appellant is a forgery, and additionally requested counsel fees.

Id. ¶¶ 7-8.

-3-

J-A20003-25

On April 8-9, 2024, the orphans’ court conducted a non-jury trial on the

ejectment action simultaneously with its hearing on the petition. On October

29, 2024, the orphans’ court entered its FFCL and its order granting the

petition. Orphans’ Court Order, 10/29/24, at 1. The orphans’ court concluded

that Ms. Abouelsaad met her burden and proved that the will submitted by

Appellant was a forgery. Orphans’ Court’s Conclusions of Law, 10/29/24, ¶ 2.

The orphans’ court revoked the letters testamentary issued to Appellant, and

ruled that Ms. Abouelsaad is entitled to letters of administration. 1 Orphans’

Court Order, 10/29/24, at 1.

The orphans’ court further declared that Decedent died intestate, and

directed that Ms. Abouelsaad is entitled to her spousal share of one-half of

Decedent’s estate. Id. The orphans’ court ordered that Decedent’s surviving

children are each entitled to one-eighth shares of Decedent’s estate. Finally,

the orphans’ court denied Ms. Abouelsaad’s request for counsel fees. This

timely appeal followed. Appellant and the orphans’ court have complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant presents the following issue for our review:

Did the [orphans’] court err and abuse its discretion in granting

the petition of [Ms.] Abouelsaad to declare the estate intestate on

the grounds that the will presented for probate by [D]ecedent’s

daughter, [Appellant], was forged?

____________________________________________

1 It is unclear how the orphans’ court resolved the ejectment action. However,

no party contests this issue.

-4-

J-A20003-25

Appellant’s Brief at 2.

An “[o]rphans’ court decision will not be reversed unless there has been

an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying the correct principles

of law.” In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 206-07 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(quoting In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942, 951 (Pa. Super. 2003)).

Because the [o]rphans’ [c]ourt sits as the fact-finder, it

determines the credibility of the witnesses, and on review, we will

not reverse its credibility determinations absent an abuse of

discretion.

In re Estate of Cruciani, 986 A.2d 853, 855 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation

omitted). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the court misapplies existing

law, makes a manifestly unreasonable judgment, or rules with partiality,

prejudice or ill will.” In re Estate of Tomcik, 286 A.3d 748, 764 (Pa. Super.

2022) (citation omitted).

Appellant argues that Ms. Abouelsaad failed to prove, by clear and

convincing evidence, that the will was a forged document. Appellant’s Brief

at 13. Appellant argues that the expert opinion evidence offered at trial by

Ms. Abouelsaad’s handwriting expert, which we detail infra, “cannot outweigh

the positive evidence of actual facts presented by credible witnesses.” Id. at

14. According to Appellant, “expert evidence regarding a forged signature

cannot override direct, credible evidence concerning the signing of the

document.” Id.

Appellant asserts that the record evidence “does not adequately

support” the orphans’ court’s factual findings. Id. at 15. Appellant argues

-5-

J-A20003-25

that the orphans’ court improperly relied on the will signature’s missing middle

initial, claiming that the omission is a small distinction and “too insignificant.”

Id. Appellant also disputes the orphans’ court’s determination that “it was

unlikely [D]ecedent would leave his entire inheritance to [Appellant],

disinheriting his other three daughters and [Ms.] Abouelsaad.” Id. Appellant

directs our attention to evidence that Appellant was raised by Decedent and

lived with him during her childhood. Id. Further, Appellant asserts that

Decedent stayed with her “during periods of marital relationship strife to avoid

conflicts.” Id. Appellant cites evidence that she paid Decedent’s bail following

his arrest, and allowed Decedent to live with her for 6-8 months. Id. In

addition, Appellant claims Decedent stayed with her “for about one weekend

each month or every other month.” Id. at 16. According to Appellant, in the

months preceding his death, Decedent divided his time between the property

and Ms. Cruz’s home. Id.

Appellant asserts that in the years prior to his death, Decedent struggled

to remove Ms. Abouelsaad and her daughter from the property, and was

“navigating a difficult divorce.” Id. at 18. Appellant points out evidence that

Decedent filed a divorce complaint against Ms. Abouelsaad. Id. at 19.

Appellant also disputes the orphans’ court’s decision to credit the

testimony of Flora, Decedent’s daughter, regarding Decedent’s signature. Id.

According to Appellant, Flora “did not examine any of the alleged letters or

postcards she received from [D]ecedent before coming to court or during the

-6-

J-A20003-25

litigation.” Id. Appellant argues that Flora “was not an independent or

unbiased witness, as she had little to no relationship with [Decedent] or …

[Appellant].” Id. at 21. Further, Appellant claims Flora did not visit Decedent

during the last five years of Decedent’s life. Id.

Appellant also challenges the orphans’ court’s decision to credit the

testimony of Ms. Abouelsaad’s expert, Donald Frangipani (Mr. Frangipani),

over the testimony of Appellant’s expert, Sandy Stevens (Ms. Stevens). Id.

Appellant directs our attention to Mr. Frangipani’s testimony that the online

auction platform eBay removed him from the site, due to his mistaken

authentication of celebrity signatures. Id. at 22-23. Appellant further

disputes Mr. Frangipani’s expert testimony that the signature on the probated

will is not Decedent’s signature. Id. at 25. Appellant argues that the orphans’

court

also disregarded that under Pennsylvania law set forth in In re

[In re Cline’s Estate], … 252 A.2d 657 ([Pa.] 1969), the opinion

evidence of experts in cases of forgery is of little weight and

cannot prevail against positive evidence of actual facts by

witnesses whom the [court] considers credible. In re Elias’

[Estate], … 239 A.2d 393, 396 ([Pa.] 1968); In re Pochron’s

[Estate], … 80 A.2d 794 ([Pa.] 1951)….

Id. at 26.

Appellant claims “the substantial credible evidence undermined the clear

and convincing evidentiary burden that Ms. Abouelsaad needed to meet to

succeed in her forgery claim, which included more than just [Appellant’s]

testimony.” Id. at 27. In support, Appellant directs our attention to the

-7-

J-A20003-25

testimony of Decedent’s brother, Edwin Sanchez (Mr. Sanchez), “that he,

[Ms.] Cruz, and [D]ecedent signed the will in [Decedent’s] vehicle, with the

notary on speakerphone during the signing.” Id.

Appellant also relies on her own testimony that Decedent had

“frequently mentioned to her that he had” a will. Id. at 29. Appellant relies

on her own testimony that she is familiar with Decedent’s signature and that

the signatures on the probated will are those of Decedent. Id. at 30.

Appellant compares the evidence in this case with the clear and

convincing evidence presented in Cline’s Estate, wherein testimony from the

contestant, the vice president of the decedent’s bank, the decedent’s attorney,

and a qualified handwriting expert, were presented, each of whom concluded

the will was a forgery. Id. at 33-34.

“Ordinarily, forgery is the unauthorized signing of a testator’s will by

another[.]” In re Luongo, 823 A.2d at 967. “A claim of forgery presents an

issue of fact; as such, the resolution of the issue necessarily turns on the

court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility.” In re Estate of Grigg, 324

A.3d 40, 45 (Pa. Super. 2024) (emphasis added). “Because the orphans’

court sits as the factfinder, it determines the credibility of the witnesses, and

on review, we will not reverse its credibility determinations absent an abuse

of discretion.” Id. Similarly, “[a] trial judge passing upon issues dependent

[on] expert opinion testimony is free to accept one expert witness’s opinion

over that of a conflicting opinion so long as there is adequate record support.”

-8-

J-A20003-25

Commonwealth v. Flor, 259 A.3d 891, 911 (Pa. 2021) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Banks, 29 A.3d 1129, 1135 (Pa. 2011)).

Our courts have long recognized that even uncontradicted

testimony need not be accepted as true. Aaron v. Strausser, …

59 A.2d 910, 912 (Pa. 1948) (“Evidence which is uncontradicted

is not necessarily to be accepted as true. Although direct evidence

contradicting the testimony of witnesses may be lacking, the

[factfinder is] not bound to accept it as true where it contains

inherent improbabilities which, alone or in connection with other

circumstances in evidence, furnish a reasonable ground for

concluding that the testimony is not true.”); Elza v. Chovan, …

144 A.2d 436, 438 (Pa. Super. 1958), affirmed, … 152 A.2d 238

(Pa. 1959) (The trier of fact “is not required to believe everything

that a litigant or his witnesses say, even though their testimony

is uncontradicted.”).

Grigg, 324 A.3d at 46-47.

In order to establish a claim that a will is a forgery, the complainant

must prove the existence of the forged document by clear, direct, precise, and

convincing evidence. Cruciani, 986 A.2d at 855. When reviewing a

determination concerning the validity of a purportedly forged will, the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court directed that

(a) the findings of fact by the chancellor, approved by a court en

banc, have the weight and effect of a jury verdict and must be

accepted at the appellate level unless such findings lack

evidentiary support or unless the chancellor has capriciously

disbelieved evidence or abused his discretion or committed an

error of law;

(b) one who relies upon forgery to challenge the validity of a will

has the burden of proving such forgery in a clear, direct, precise

and convincing manner;

(c) the opinion evidence of experts in cases of forgery is of little

weight and cannot prevail against positive evidence of actual facts

by witnesses whom the Chancellor considers credible; [and]

-9-

J-A20003-25

(d) the testimony of handwriting experts that a will offered for

probate is a forgery[,] corroborated by probative facts and

circumstances[,] may be sufficient to overcome the testimony of

those claiming to be subscribing witnesses to the questioned

document and to support a finding of forgery and the

corroborative evidence may be the most nearly positive and direct

evidence which the nature of the case will admit.

Cline’s Estate, 252 A.2d at 660 (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted; format altered); accord Grigg, 324 A.3d at 45.

At trial, Flora testified that following the death of her father, Decedent,

she conversed with Appellant about Ms. Abouelsaad. N.T., 4/8/23, at 138-39.

According to Flora, Appellant’s “first comment was that she was going to do

whatever was in her power to leave [Ms. Abouelsaad] and her daughter in the

street.” Id. at 139. Flora confirmed that in her conversations with Appellant,

Appellant acknowledged “there was no will.” Id. at 139, 146. Flora testified

that Appellant subsequently requested that Flora sign a renunciation of her

interest in administering Decedent’s estate. Id. at 141-42. Flora declined to

sign the renunciation. Id. at 142.

On May 30, 2023, Flora filed a notice of intention to appeal from register.

Id. at 144, 146. This notice provided, in relevant part, the following:

The undersigned, a party in interest, intends to file an appeal to

the Orphans’ Court division … from the following decision of the

Register of Wills in the above estate. Granting letters of

administration to [Appellant] …. And then the other … document

filed by [Appellant] is not legal. [Appellant] is not acting on behalf

of myself nor my sister, Annelis []. We are legal daughters of

[Decedent]. [Decedent] didn’t really have a testament. … [T]he

document presented is false….

- 10 -

J-A20003-25

Id. at 145. Flora testified,

I had a conversation with [Ms. Abouelsaad], and she had

mentioned that there were [] documents filed [and] that there

was a will, but I had previous conversations with [Appellant], and

there was no will. She specifically mentioned to us that there was

no will.

Id. at 147.

Regarding her familiarity with Decedent’s signature, Flora testified,

I live[d] with him in 2008, so I am familiar with his signature

because he enroll[ed] my daughter in school. Since we lived in

his household, he had to complete her paperwork for school.

….

… I have seen [Decedent’s] signature throughout my life. Not only

when he did documents in 2008, but I do remember as a child I

ask[ed] him, … why your [sic] signature is like scribble that you

can’t read, and he taught me that the reason he made his

signature that way was because you’re supposed to sign [so] that

nobody can duplicate your signature ….

Id. at 148, 150. Flora confirmed that “I seen [sic] his signature all my life,

and in 2008[,] it has not changed. It was the same.” Id. at 150. Upon

reviewing the signatures on the proposed will, Flora testified that the

signatures were not those of Decedent. Id. at 148, 151. Flora further testified

that Appellant never told her about the will, or about the deed transferring

ownership of the property to Appellant. Id. at 152.

On cross-examination, Flora acknowledged that she did not visit the

property in the five years prior to Decedent’s death. Id. at 156. Flora further

confirmed she did not review the 2008 documents in the last two years. Id.

at 157. However, Flora confirmed that throughout her life, Decedent sent her

- 11 -

J-A20003-25

cards for graduation, Christmas and birthdays. Id. at 159. Regarding the

signatures on the will, Flora explained that the “S” in Sanchez “was easy to

read, whereas Decedent “used to scribble [so] that you could not really

understand what he wrote.” Id. at 163. She continued, “And the fact that …

you could read it, it says Sanchez. He never wrote that way.” Id.

Ms. Abouelsaad also testified at trial. Ms. Abouelsaad testified that prior

to Decedent’s death, she had no issues with Decedent’s daughters. Id. at 50.

However, after Decedent’s death, Ms. Abouelsaad began to have problems

with Appellant. Id.

Ms. Abouelsaad explained her relationship with Decedent. Id. at 51. At

first, Ms. Abouelsaad stated, the couple did not have issues. Id. However, in

2019,

[Decedent] was on drunk [sic] and drugs, and this was the

problem. This was the argument between me and him. We were

upstairs and then [Decedent] would argue about something, and

I don’t want to argue with him because at that time he was

drinking, so I went downstairs to the garage to avoid him, and he

followed me down, and he insist[ed] to [sic] arguing and then he

push[ed] me out of the house and then my daughter opened the

door for me.

I spen[t] the whole night with my daughter in her rooms and …

when I woke up and I get out of the room, [Decedent] keep[s]

insist[ing] to argument [sic] [and he] get[s] crazy, starting to take

all the drawers from the closet and throw me [sic] with it. He took

the TV, knocking down to the floor and then he point[ed] the gun

at my … face, at me….

Id. at 51-52. This incident took place on May 7, 2019. Id. at 52. Thereafter,

Ms. Abouelsaad obtained a PFA order. Id. Subsequently, Ms. Abouelsaad told

- 12 -

J-A20003-25

Decedent she would not lie in court, but would refrain from appearing for the

PFA hearing. Id. at 53. Although Decedent filed for divorce against Ms.

Abouelsaad, nothing followed that filing. Id. at 69. Ms. Abouelsaad testified

that in July 2021, her daughter obtained a PFA order against Decedent. Id.

at 54.

Ms. Abouelsaad testified she had no knowledge of the will advanced by

Appellant. Id. at 61. Ms. Abouelsaad testified that she is familiar with

Decedent’s signature, because Decedent “sign[ed] too many documents” in

front of her. Id. at 66. Ms. Abouelsaad testified the signature on the will is

not Decedent’s signature. Id. at 67, 68.

Ms. Abouelsaad also presented the testimony of her handwriting expert,

Mr. Frangipani. N.T., 4/9/23, at 169. Mr. Frangipani testified that the last

time he testified as a handwriting expert was in 2018. Id. at 180. However,

Mr. Frangipani was scheduled to testify as an expert the day after his trial

testimony. Id. at 179.

Mr. Frangipani listed his certifications:

[The] American Board of Forensic Examiners. I’ve taken classes

at John Jay College, Valencia College in Florida. I’m a member of

the New York State Division[,] which qualifies me also as a

questioned document examiner. I attend all of their meetings;

New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. I’m also qualified Tri-

State Legal Photographers. I attend their classes for forensic

photography. Another organization out of Baltimore, and one of

your associates is an organization in Manhattan, Felix Kline was

one of my instructors.

- 13 -

J-A20003-25

Id. at 175. Mr. Frangipani explained that he has testified as a handwriting

expert in New York and in New York State’s federal courts. Id. at 177-78.

Mr. Frangipani indicated that he has been qualified as a handwriting expert in

New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and Kingston, Jamaica. Id. at 176.

According to Mr. Frangipani, he has been accepted as an expert about

“[s]eventy, eighty times maybe.” Id. Mr. Frangipani stated he has lectured

on the subject of handwriting analysis at John Jay College and for “various

organizations.” Id. at 178.

Mr. Frangipani testified about

one of the biggest cases I worked on, I was appointed by the

federal court, Judge Duffy of New York, on the World Trade center

bombing. I worked … against a terrorist. My job was to take

handwriting specimens from the terrorist. So I spent 19 hours

over three months with the terrorist. Then I would go to the FBI

lab and examine all of the evidence. That was part of the bombing

training.

Id. at 176.

Mr. Frangipani explained an incident involving his removal from eBay as

a signature authenticator:

I was on eBay, and eBay removed me, and the reason they

removed me is because other people out there who claim to be

experts that never qualified, yet they’re accepted. … [T]he FBI

came to my office, … and they brought with them 350 letters that

I allegedly examined….

The FBI agent showed me each letter, He says, are these yours?

I said no, these are not my signatures. … They went over each

one. I got a call from the FBI two days later. They said you’re

our witness. … I was supposed to testify against an outfit in Las

Vegas called Smokey’s. All [of] these organizations were taking

my letters and making copies. I have a record of all that.

- 14 -

J-A20003-25

The agent calls me up and he says to me, we don’t need you to

testify, we shut down Smokey’s and we proved that these letters

were all copied. So everybody that knew I was in this business

started posting all of this stuff about me on eBay.

….

When the FBI came to my office with all of those letters, … the FBI

agreed that I was correct. First of all, I have to name a few

people. It was Tiger Woods, Mark Maguire. These are people that

said they never signed any of these things. ….

I brought a video to the court to show Tiger Woods signing PGA

flags and everything else, so I wasn’t proven wrong. Then I

testified in federal court in a commission trial, … and I was

accepted after that, also.

Id. at 184-86. Mr. Frangipani acknowledged that the television network HBO

had aired a documentary about this case. Id. at 187. Mr. Frangipani testified

that he sued HBO over their statement that Mr. Frangipani was “the forger’s

authenticator of choice” based upon the eBay matter. Id. at 188. That

lawsuit was ultimately dismissed. Id.

Mr. Frangipani further explained a statement he made in an interview:

Q. [Appellant’s counsel]: You were asked during the interview

with Sports Digest whether you mistakenly authenticated

signatures, correct?

A. [Mr. Frangipani]: The statement I made is we all make

mistakes.

Q. Well, actually your statement was I’ve been wrong many,

many, many times. Isn’t that what you told them?

A. I say that. I may have been wrong many times. First of all,

handwriting is an opinionated science. Another case is with the

New York Yankees where I verified a lot of signatures on the

- 15 -

J-A20003-25

players. I proved later [] that the clubhouse manager was the

one signing their names.

Id. at 187. The orphans’ court qualified Mr. Frangipani as an expert. Id. at

189.

Mr. Frangipani testified regarding his analysis of Decedent’s signature

on the will submitted by Appellant. Mr. Frangipani confirmed that he

examined the original will filed at the courthouse. Id. at 190. Mr. Frangipani

further confirmed he examined known signatures of Decedent and issued two

reports. Id. Mr. Frangipani testified that

the first report that I issued, I put in that report suspicious. The

reason I used the word suspicious is because the will on that page

was not notarized, not signed, and it was blank, the day was

blank. That’s why I was suspicious. Then I went back over again

and I issued a second report.

Id. at 190-91. Mr. Frangipani testified his opinion did change, and confirmed

his “opinion was to a reasonable degree of certainty that [Decedent] did not

sign that particular signature.” Id. at 191. Mr. Frangipani explained that,

first of all, under the microscope I look at each letter, the degree

of slant, spacing, height of letters, baseline writing, pen pressure.

I looked at all of those things when I look[ed] at the signature.

Id. at 192.

In concluding that the signature on the will was not Decedent’s

signature, Mr. Frangipani stated that, “if you look at the two questioned

signatures, there’s no middle initial …. On the known signatures, it’s

consistent on every signature.” Id. at 195. Mr. Frangipani further explained

that “the terminal strokes on the Z are not consistent with each other. Every

- 16 -

J-A20003-25

one has a different space …. If you look at all the Ss and the Cs[,] … all the

Ss [are] wide open. … Every one.” Id. at 196. Mr. Frangipani differentiated

the way the known signatures of Decedent formed the letter “s” from the letter

“s” used in the proposed will. Id. at 198-99. Regarding the letter “z”, Mr.

Frangipani testified that the “terminal strokes” in the known signatures are

open, while the terminal strokes are closed in the will’s signature. Id. at 201.

Mr. Frangipani further distinguished other letters in the known signature

exemplars from those in the proposed will. Id. at 202-03. Mr. Frangipani

opined, “After a normal study during a microscopic exam, it is my professional

opinion [Decedent] did not sign the two signatures on the will.” Id. at 204.

In support of the will’s authenticity, Appellant presented the testimony

of Mr. Sanchez. Id. at 236. Mr. Sanchez testified that Decedent had been in

a romantic relationship with Ms. Cruz for about 35 years. Id. at 237.

According to Mr. Sanchez, Ms. Cruz and Decedent are the parents of Frances.

Id. However, Decedent and Ms. Cruz never married. Id. at 238. Mr. Sanchez

testified that Decedent and Ms. Cruz maintained their relationship until

Decedent’s death. Id. at 238. Mr. Sanchez described Decedent as “a

womanizer. He loved women. That was his weakness.” Id. at 239.

Regarding the will, Mr. Sanchez testified that

[Decedent] kept in contact with me on a daily basis and told me

we were going to meet up and that he needed me to be a witness

to a will that he was going to sign for his own reasons. …

[Decedent] wanted me to be a witness, and I have been a witness

to other transactions that he has made with [the notary, Theresa

Baerga (Theresa),] because he buys cars, he sells cars, so she

- 17 -

J-A20003-25

was no stranger to the family. [Appellant has known] her for over

30 years. I personally don’t have that close relationship, but I am

knowledgeable of who the lady is, and in the past I have been

there with [Decedent] to do other witnessing when he was selling

a vehicle or a motorcycle or so on.

…

… We were initially supposed to meet in Theresa’s house, but I

was not going to go meet up with [Decedent] …. I was working,

and I told [Decedent] I couldn’t make it, and we did it remotely

from his car, which we met before in different locations when I

need to see him. It was midway from where he lives and where I

live, so in this particular instance we met in his car, and he did it

off his remote.

Id. at 252-53, 256. According to Mr. Sanchez, Ms. Cruz and Appellant met

with Mr. Sanchez at a service station. Id. at 265-66. Mr. Sanchez entered

Appellant’s vehicle. Id. at 266. Appellant called Theresa on by phone, but

without video. Id. at 266-67. Appellant signed the document, after which

Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Cruz signed as witnesses. Id. at 267. Mr. Sanchez

testified that he did not read the document presented for his signature. Id.

at 271. Mr. Sanchez testified that the signature on the will is consistent with

Decedent’s signature, which he has seen on other occasions. Id. at 273.

Mr. Sanchez testified that Appellant and Decedent were close:

[Appellant] was … his right hand. [Decedent] moved to

Pennsylvania to be near [Appellant] because she was his support,

his advisor. They did everything together, so he wanted to live

near her and provide for her. [Decedent] … was always staying

at [Appellant’s] house. He lived at her house. When he couldn’t

go back to the house that he bought, he stood in [Appellant’s]

house. He stayed there.

- 18 -

J-A20003-25

Id. at 274. According to Mr. Sanchez, Appellant “was his favorite daughter.”

Id.

Appellant also presented the testimony of Steven Mills, Esquire

(Attorney Mills). Attorney Mills testified that he represented Decedent in the

PFA action filed against Decedent by Ms. Abouelsaad. N.T., 4/9/24, at 5.

However, the PFA action was dismissed because Ms. Abouelsaad failed to

appear for the hearing. Id. at 11. Attorney Mills also confirmed that he had

prepared a divorce complaint for Decedent. Id. at 6. Regarding the PFA

matter filed by Ms. Abouelsaad’s daughter, Attorney Mills testified that the

matter was dismissed based upon the failure of Ms. Abouelsaad’s daughter to

appear for the final hearing. Id. at 26.

Appellant next presented the expert testimony of Ms. Stevens. Id. at

41. Ms. Stevens testified that she is a certified document examiner. Id. Ms.

Stevens explained her certification as follows:

When the president of the National Bureau of Document

Examiners went over my court cases, I had been going to court

for 12 years before I was certified, so he went over not only my

court cases but my methodology and my publications. My

publication[s] are a series of forms that I use to show that I have

a method of carefully examining documents, and the list is on my

resume, a list of my publications, and I give them away for free

to other document examiners.

Id. Ms. Stevens explained that she has been testifying as an expert in

Pennsylvania since 1991. Id. at 43. Further, Ms. Stevens indicated that she

has never been disqualified as an expert witness. Id. Ms. Stevens testified

that she has taught courses for security professionals at Jersey City State

- 19 -

J-A20003-25

College for three semesters, and taught document examination for tellers at

a credit union. Id. at 45. The orphans’ court accepted Ms. Stevens’

qualifications as an expert witness. Id. at 49.

Ms. Stevens described her examination of the signatures on the will and

deed:

[W]hat I did was I created trait similarity charts where I examined

every single trait, every single stroke, on both signatures,

compared to not only my six standards, but I also … scanned all

the documents. Also [Mr.] Frangipani’s … documents, which were

15 signatures, [] then I made a very clear list of those … as well

as my 6 … so it came to 21 signatures.

….

I carefully compared every single stroke, every single letter, to 21

Carlos Sanchez [known signatures (standards)] that were

excellent because they were either notarized or witnessed. They

were very good standards, and they were also clear, and they

were rather timely….

Id. at 52-53 (punctuation modified). Ms. Stevens compared her standards

with those analyzed by Mr. Frangipani:

[Mr. Frangipani’s standards] were from 2017, and mine were from

a year and [] two months before [Decedent] died, so my

standards were more timely than [Mr. Frangipani’s] standards,

but he had some excellent standards. I can’t complain about his

standards as far as the fact that they were notarized or witnessed,

they were clear. What I did was I just made bigger copies, better

copies, and straighter copies [of the signatures.]

Id. at 56.

Ms. Stevens described her process for analyzing Decedent’s signatures:

The first thing I do is I take all the documents and I scan them for

clarity … and then I have a very large monitor so I’m looking at

- 20 -

J-A20003-25

the signatures that are very large now, clear and large. And what

I do [i]s I make examples of the individual signatures.

I show them as being very large and very clear, and I don’t just

take a magnifying glass and go back and forth a few times. I do

have a 40[-]power magnifying glass. But I go letter by letter, and

what I do first is, I do … a trait similarity chart and the handwriting

signature comparison chart so I understand fully every stroke of

the signatures.

The standards, I’m going down a list to totally understand … how

[Decedent] wrote, and he had a tremendous amount of variety to

his signatures ….

Id. at 57-58.

Ms. Stevens testified regarding her comparisons of the signatures, letter

by letter:

What I found was the C began at the baseline in standards 3, 5,

and 6. The C’s upper loop is wide in standards 1, 2, 4, and 6. The

C’s overloop is slanted so rightward that it overhangs part of the

L in standards 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Overhang part of the L in Carlos.

And the C ends with the horizontal stroke in four standards and

the C’s ending stroke is tapered.

Now tapering is extremely important. Tapering at the beginning

and the end of a name indicates authenticity because it’s

extremely hard to forge something so quickly that it has a taper,

so I point to the tapers in these standards. So … five out of the

six have the tapers. And I think that’s very important, and it’s on

my forgery checklist.

….

… The A is separate from the C in five of the standards. … [A]ll of

the standard As are higher above the baseline, and the A is more

flattened and round in standards 2, 3, 4, and 5. All of these things

are important because if somebody is doing a forgery, they can’t

keep track of … 30 things in a signature that … that are seen in

the standards, especially on an upward slant.

…

- 21 -

J-A20003-25

The next page is number 3, which is the R is missing, and I say

five standards have no R. The R is seen only in standard 4. Now

that is very important … that when this man is writing his name,

he doesn’t consciously say, I’m going to leave out the R in five of

my standards. … [H]e’s writing very quickly, and he’s not figuring

out what letters to leave out.

Well, a forger would not forge something with all these different

traits. … [I]t would be absolutely impossible, and this proves to

authenticity. These are real reasons why I’m showing

authenticity….

Id. at 63-64. Ms. Stevens similarly analyzed each letter in Decedent’s

signature. See id. at 64-73.

However, with regard to the “S” in Carlos, Ms. Stevens testified,

I made a mistake on that with the S on there where I put a line

for the S, but now I realize it couldn’t have been an S because it

opens on the right, and all the Ss are closed and go towards the

left, exactly the opposite, which is very clearly seen….

Id. at 73. Ms. Stevens further explained her examination of every letter in

the Decedent’s last name. Id. at 75-86.

Regarding the missing middle initial in the will’s signature, Ms. Stevens

testified she did not find it significant. Id. at 87. Ms. Stevens pointed out

that five out of the 21 known standards had a missing middle initial. Id. Ms.

Stevens opined that “in this case, leaving out the middle initial 5 out of 20

[sic] [times], that’s a high number of showing that it wasn’t a rarity.” Id. at

88. Ms. Stevens opined that the signatures on the will are authentic

signatures. Id. at 107.

- 22 -

J-A20003-25

On cross-examination, Ms. Stevens confirmed that timeliness of her

standards “was very important” to her. Id. at 111. However, Ms. Stevens

acknowledged that one of her standards is dated December 21, 2016. Id.

Ms. Stevens further confirmed that she did not review the standards contained

in Decedent’s divorce complaint or his post-sentencing colloquy. Id. at 113-

14. Ms. Stevens indicated she was unaware of those documents. Id. at 115.

At the hearing, Appellant testified that “throughout my entire life I was

raised with [Decedent].” Id. at 166. According to Appellant,

once I became an adult, and I was on my own because [Decedent]

had various relationships, if there was ever an issue with any of

those relationships, I basically was where he would go and stay.

So he would go stay over [at] my house or he would call me and

basically vice versa.

Id. at 167. This continued during the last five years of Decedent’s life. Id.

Appellant testified that

[w]hen [Decedent] was arrested on criminal charges, he called

me. I had to pay $2,000 to bail him out, and when I bailed him

out he wasn’t allowed to go home, so he had to stay with me

during … six- to eight-month period that he stayed with me

because he was not allowed in. During that time, I had to call

[Ms. Abouelsaad] for medication. I had to call her for clothing or

anything that needed to be brought because [Decedent] was not

allowed to go into the home.

Id. at 168.

Appellant testified that there were other instances when Decedent would

stay three or four days at her residence. Id. at 171. According to Appellant,

from 2020-2022, Decedent would “stay probably for the weekend… on a

monthly basis or every other month ….” Id. Decedent additionally would

- 23 -

J-A20003-25

“pop in two to three times a week, have a cup of coffee and leave, even if it

was … a five-minute drop-in to see what I was doing and stuff like that.” Id.

at 172. Appellant asserted that she and Decedent were “extremely” close.

Id. Appellant also loaned Decedent money “when he needed it.” Id. at 174.

Appellant testified to her understanding that Decedent had a will. Id.

at 183. Appellant explained that months after Decedent’s death, Ms. Cruz

found the will at Decedent’s Bronx, New York, residence. Id. at 176.

According to Appellant, Decedent and Ms. Cruz had resided at that residence.

Id. at 177.

Appellant testified that Decedent mentioned having a will numerous

times. Id. at 185. However, Appellant stated she was unable to find the will.

Id. Prior to Ms. Cruz finding the will, Ms. Abouelsaad sought PFA orders to

preclude Frances and Appellant from removing items from the property. Id.

at 187.

Appellant testified that she was familiar with Decedent’s signature. Id.

at 191. Appellant stated that she had reviewed Decedent’s documents related

to his purchase of the property and other work-related documents. Id. at

191. Appellant also saw Decedent’s signature on “his lawyer’s paperwork as

well[,]” and on his bail certificate. Id. Appellant identified the signature on

the will as Decedent’s signature. Id. at 192.

Appellant acknowledged that in or around June 2023, she contacted

Melissa Rudas, Esquire (Attorney Rudas), to prepare a will for Decedent. Id.

- 24 -

J-A20003-25

at 223. Appellant stated she asked Attorney Rudas to prepare a will that

would name Appellant as executrix and devise Decedent’s property in equal

shares to his four daughters. Id. at 225.

Appellant also presented the testimony of Attorney Rudas. Attorney

Rudas testified that a paralegal from her office prepared a will, a power of

attorney, and a living will for Decedent. Id. at 234. However, Attorney Rudas

never spoke with Decedent personally. Id. According to Attorney Rudas, her

office communicated only with Appellant. Id. Attorney Rudas reviewed the

will prepared by her paralegal. Id. at 235. The will named Appellant as

executrix and divided Decedent’s estate equally among his four daughters.

Id. Attorney Rudas emailed a copy of the will to Appellant. Id. at 236.

Attorney Rudas denied any knowledge of whether that will was executed by

Decedent. Id. at 236. Attorney Rudas indicated that her office did not

prepare the will presented by Appellant for probate. Id. at 242.

Easton Police Detective Thomas Klotz (Detective Klotz) testified

regarding his investigation into the alleged forgery of the will and a deed. Id.

at 278. According to Detective Klotz, he interviewed Appellant and Mr.

Sanchez. Id. at 279. According to Detective Klotz, Mr. Sanchez stated his

belief that he had signed Decedent’s will in an office. Id. at 287. Detective

Klotz also testified that he interviewed Appellant about the deed for the

property:

When I asked [Appellant] about the deed, I remember asking her

questions about how the deed was worded on the part where if

- 25 -

J-A20003-25

[Decedent] was married or unmarried. I believe her response …

was that … the attorney who prepared the deed was only copying

it from the house that was previously sold, I guess when Decedent

was single.

Id. at 288. Detective Klotz stated, “I believe [Appellant] asked the lawyer to

create the deed[.]” Id. at 289.

Detective Klotz continued:

[Appellant] took the deed … into New York where she met, I

believe, with [Decedent]. … [T]he deed was signed, I believe, in

her house … in Phillipsburg, I believe is what she told me and then

later took the deed with [Decedent’s] driver’s license to the notary

in New York to have the deed signed and notarized.

Id. at 290. According to Detective Klotz,

when I spoke to the notary over the phone, she had mentioned

that she’s known [Appellant] for a very long time and that she

knows the family so, therefore, she would be able to notarize the

document without Decedent actually being there.

Id. at 291. Based upon his interview with Appellant, it was Detective Klotz’s

belief that the notary did not speak with Decedent that day. Id. Detective

Klotz testified,

when I brought up the discrepancies between … what [Appellant]

was telling me and what I had previously spoke to the notary

about, [Appellant] said the notary was lying about how the

document was signed.

Id.

Regarding the will, Detective Klotz testified that Appellant told him the

will was created by Attorney Rudas, and it was only recently found in a closet.

Id. at 292.

- 26 -

J-A20003-25

In its FFCL, the orphans’ court credited the testimony of Ms. Abouelsaad,

Flora, Mr. Frangipani, Detective Klotz, and Attorney Rudas. FFCL, 10/29/24,

at 17. Regarding the testimony of Mr. Frangipani, the orphans’ court stated,

unlike [Ms.] Stevens[,] who examined a photocopy of the will,

[Mr.] Frangipani examined the original will that was probated in

the Orphans’ Court. Second, [Mr.] Frangipani noted that the

probated will was not signed by a notary public and the date on

the will was blank. Third, [Mr.] Frangipani testified that there

were different “strokes” on the letter “C” in Decedent’s first name

and the letter “z” of Decedent’s last name. He found the “degree

of slant” on the letter “I” in Decedent’s first name to be different

from the “I” in Decedent’s known signatures. Finally, [Mr.]

Frangipani found it notable that each of the known signatures

except for onecontained the middle initial “I,” while the signatures

on the probated will did not contain the middle initial “I.” [Mr.]

Frangipani concluded that the signatures on the will are not

Decedent’s signatures. [The orphans’ court] found [Mr.]

Frangipani’s testimony to be reliable and credible.

Id. at 19.

Further, the orphans’ court credited the testimony of Attorney Rudas:

[B]ecause Attorney Rudas drafted a will naming Decedent’s four

children as equal heirs, and the probated will named [Appellant]

as Decedent’s sole heir, [the orphans’ court] found that Attorney

Rudas’s testimony supported [Ms.] Abouelsaad’s argument that

the probated will was forged.

Id. at 22.

The orphans’ court found the testimony of Appellant, Ms. Stevens, and

Mr. Sanchez not to be credible. Id. Regarding Appellant’s testimony, the

orphans’ court explained:

First, [Appellant] testified that the will “was found in a closet in

the Bronx” in the home where Decedent resided with [Ms.] Cruz,

contradicting [Ms.] Abouelsaad’s statement that Decedent resided

with her until his death. Second, [Appellant] testified that

- 27 -

J-A20003-25

Decedent told her on numerous occasions that he had a will, yet

[Flora] testified that [Appellant] advised her that Decedent did not

have a will.

Id. at 23 (citations omitted). The orphans’ court continued:

[Appellant] testified that she contacted Attorney Rudas to create

a will … that would name [Appellant] as executor and Decedent’s

four daughters as equal heirs. Detective Klotz testified that

“[Appellant] told me the will was created by Attorney Rudas. I

guess the will had been lost, and she only recently found it in a

closet somewhere. [The orphans’ court] find[s] that there are

inconsistencies in [Appellant’s] statements to Detective Klotz and

[Appellant’s] testimony at trial. If the will was merely lost[,] as

[Appellant] explained to Detective Klotz, when the will was found,

[the court] believe[s] it would contain the same provisions as the

will Attorney Rudas drafted, i.e., naming Decedent’s four children

as equal heirs….

Id. at 23-24.

The orphans’ court did not find Mr. Sanchez to be a credible witness, as

Mr. Sanchez testified he signed the will in Decedent’s car, but previously told

Detective Klotz he had signed the will in an office in New York. Id. at 24-25.

The orphans’ court noted that Mr. Sanchez’s recollection of the location he

signed the will changed three times. Id. at 25.

Regarding Ms. Stevens’s expert testimony, the orphans’ court found that

the mistakes in her testimony “are significant.” Id. at 28. The orphans’ court

found Ms. Stevens incredible because

1) When making her report, she only examined six known

signatures; 2) she did not examine the original probated will; 3)

she admitted to making mistakes regarding her analysis of letter

placement of Decedent’s signature; 4) she did not find the middle

initial “I” to be significant; and 5) Decedent’s two signatures on

the probated will were different from each other.

- 28 -

J-A20003-25

Id. at 29.

We conclude Appellant’s reliance on Cline’s Estate is misplaced.

Instantly, the orphans’ court did not solely rely upon the testimony of the

handwriting expert, but on the testimony of Ms. Abouelsaad, Flora, Attorney

Rudas, and Detective Klotz as well. Our review of the transcript is supportive

of the orphans’ court’s findings and its conclusion invalidating Decedent’s

signatures on the will as a forgery.

[A fact finder] is the only appropriate tribunal, in such a case

[where forgery of a will is asserted], to determine which way the

balance inclines. Having the testimony present[ed] to [its] eyes

as well as [its] ears, the truth may be made manifest beyond any

substantial doubt […].

DeLaurentiis’ Est., 186 A. 359, 363-64 (Pa. 1936). Instantly, the orphans’

court was uniquely positioned as the finder-of-fact and credibility-assessor to

weigh the testimony in support of the parties’ respective positions. The

orphans’ court found clear and convincing evidence established that the will is

a forgery, and the record supports the court’s findings. Discerning no error

or abuse of discretion, we affirm the orphans’ court’s order.

Order affirmed.

Date: 9/12/2025

- 29 -