Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Lazarus](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10803135/in-re-g-bush-appeal-of-m-bush/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re: G. Bush, Appeal of: M. Bush

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 266 EDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Lazarus

• Opinion

• Authorities

• Cited By

• Summaries

• Similar Cases

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by [Anne E. Lazarus](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8236/anne-e-lazarus/)

J-A25007-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ESTATE OF GENEVIEVE BUSH : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: MARY BUSH :
:
:
:
:
: No. 266 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered January 2, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Orphans' Court at
No(s): 1521-1459

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BOWES, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED MARCH 3, 2026

Mary Bush (“Mary”) appeals, pro se, from the order, entered in the Court

of Common Pleas of Chester County, Orphans’ Court Division, declaring invalid

a will executed by Genevieve Bush, Deceased (“Mrs. Bush” or “Decedent”), on

December 5, 2007 (“2007 Will”),1 on the basis that Decedent lacked

testamentary capacity and was subject to undue influence exercised by Mary.

After careful consideration, we affirm.

The parties to this matter—all siblings—have been involved in

contentious litigation concerning their mother, Decedent, for nearly 20 years.

---

• Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Although the order in question only addresses the 2007 Will, the Orphans’

Court’s accompanying memorandum also invalidates another will executed in
2006 (“2006 Will”).
J-A25007-25

This Court previously summarized a relevant portion of this matter’s history

as follows:

[S]ince the death of her husband, Fabian Bush, on June 25, 2004,
the care of [Mrs.] Bush and her estate have been a matter of
contention between her daughter, [Mary], and her three surviving
sons, Appellees Michael, Joseph, and Justin Bush.[2] [Mary]
systematically isolated Mrs. Bush from her sons and their families,
prevented Appellees from entering [Mrs. Bush’s home] and
visiting Mrs. Bush, failed to inform them of Mrs. Bush’s medical
problems, posted signs disparaging them on Mrs. Bush’s property,
and otherwise kept Mrs. Bush away from Appellees. [Mary]
further persuaded Mrs. Bush to transfer the family home to her
for $10.00, and[,] thereafter[, to] pay for thousands of dollars of
renovations out of the estate.

On June 24, 2011, the [Orphans’ Court] found Mrs. Bush to be an
incapacitated person[] and appointed [Mary] and [Michael] as co-
guardians of her person[3] and [Joseph] as guardian of the estate.

---

2 Justin Bush is not a party to the instant appeal.

3 Despite Mary’s behavior, the Orphans’ Court found it appropriate to appoint

her as co-guardian of the person, explaining its rationale as follows:

Paradoxically, while the fragility of Mrs. Bush’s emotional health
has been largely exacerbated by Mary’s manipulative behavior,
Mary holds the key to the quality of Mrs. Bush’s last years. As
justified as it might seem to exclude Mary before more harm can
be done, the reality is that Mrs. Bush is enmeshed with Mary, and
a complete severance of that relationship could be disastrous.
Even her brothers recognize that Mary deserves a place not only
in their mother’s life, but in their own. Their commitment to
preserving family ties for their and their mother’s benefit has
persuaded me that both Joseph and Michael are well[-]suited to
“assert the rights and best interests” of their mother as required
by the statute.13
13 Joseph testified that the brothers do not intend to prevent

Mary from seeing Mrs. Bush. “[O]ur purpose is not to
exclude Mary from our mother’s life. Our purpose with this
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-2-
J-A25007-25

[The June 24, 2011 order also declared void, due to undue
influence exercised by Mary upon Mrs. Bush, a power of attorney
executed by Mrs. Bush on January 19, 2006 (“2006 POA”), naming
Mary as her agent.4 On August 5, 2011, the Orphans’ Court
entered an order, to which the parties stipulated, amending its
June 24, 2011 order to include language voiding all transfers of
assets made by Mrs. Bush to Mary, or by Mary acting as agent
under the power of attorney, and directing the guardian of the
estate to take appropriate measures to secure those assets for the
benefit of Mrs. Bush’s estate. After the Orphans’ Court denied
Mary’s exceptions, Mary] appealed[. W]e affirmed[ on the basis
of the Orphans’ Court’s thorough and well-reasoned June 24, 2011
opinion]. []See In re Bush, Nos. 2726 and 2746 EDA 2011, [(unpublished memorandum
decision).]

[O]n June 8, 2012, the [Orphans’ Court] ordered that Appellees,
with twenty-four hours’ notice to [Mary], be permitted to enter
the property without [Mary] present, perform an inventory of the
estate, and schedule visits with Mrs. Bush under supervision of a
neutral third party. The same day, as ordered, Appellees’ attorney
provided twenty-four-hour[s’] notice by email that they would
visit the next day.

The following day, on June 9, 2012, [Mary] was present when
Appellees arrived at Mrs. Bush’s home[. Mary] prevented them
from going in the house, claimed she didn’t have on-site email and
[did not] receive notice until that afternoon (although she had

---

is to get Mary help and let us all have a healthy relationship
with our mother, instead of the one that exists right now.”
[]N.T. [Hearing,] 5/27/10, at 85.[]

However, as Michael has somewhat greater flexibility of work and
personal life, it will be his task to work with Mary on designing the
next chapter in Mrs. Bush’s life. Accordingly, I appoint Michael []
and Mary [] as co-guardians of the person of [Mrs.] Bush.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/24/11, at 29-30.

4 Joseph and Michael had also asked the Orphans’ Court to declare void the

2006 and 2007 Wills. However, because, at the time, Mrs. Bush was still alive
and the Wills were still ambulatory, the court properly declined to rule on the
issue.

-3-
J-A25007-25

been ordered to maintain a working phone line and email
address), and then called the police when Appellees entered the
basement to begin the property inventory. Appellees attempted
to reschedule several times, but [Mary] insisted on choosing the
“neutral” third party, scheduled appointments with Mrs. Bush so
she would not be home during planned visits, and ultimately
confessed at a hearing that Mrs. Bush had been hospitalized
several times and would be having surgery that she had not told
the other guardians about. The inventory and visits never took
place as ordered.

On July 23, 2012, [Mary] filed a petition to remove [Michael] as
co-guardian of the person. On August 8, 2012, [] Michael and
Joseph [] filed a petition for contempt [against Mary] and, on
August 31, 2012, they filed a petition to remove [Mary] as co-
guardian of the person. On November 16, 2012, [Mary] filed a
petition to remove [Joseph] as a guardian of the estate. The
[Orphans’ Court] consolidated the petitions into one hearing[]
and[,] after six days of testimony, entered [] orders finding [Mary]
in contempt, removing her as co-guardian [of the person,
replacing her as co-guardian with Elizabeth Srinivasan, Esquire,]
and ordering Mary to remove herself and her effects from [Mrs.]
Bush’s house. [Mary] timely filed separate appeals from the
orders[.]

In re Bush, Nos. 1694, 1861, & 1863 EDA 2013, at **3-5 (Pa. Super. filed

June 24, 2014) (unpublished memorandum decision). This Court affirmed the

orders of the Orphans’ Court.

There followed further litigation over the guardianship of Mrs. Bush.

Attorney Srinivasan petitioned to withdraw as co-guardian of the person and

Mary petitioned to remove Michael and Joseph as co-guardian of the person

and guardian of the estate, respectively. Following a hearing, the court

granted Attorney Srinivasan’s petition to withdraw and Mary’s petition to

remove Michael as co-guardian of the person. The court denied Mary’s petition

-4-
J-A25007-25

to remove Joseph as guardian of the estate. 5 Finally, the court appointed

Guardian Services of Pennsylvania as sole guardian of Mrs. Bush’s person.

Mrs. Bush died on June 16, 2021.6 On June 23, 2021, Joseph and

Michael (collectively, “Appellees”) filed a caveat with the Register of Wills,

averring that Mary intended to offer for probate the 2007 Will, which Appellees

alleged was executed when Mrs. Bush lacked testamentary capacity and was

procured by Mary through the exercise of undue influence. The 2007 Will

poured over into a Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated December 5, 2007

(“Trust”); upon Mrs. Bush’s death, Mary became the sole trustee and

beneficiary of the Trust. Appellees sought to probate a photocopy of a will

dated February 14, 2004 (“2004 Will”), which left Mrs. Bush’s entire estate,

upon the death of her husband, in equal shares to her four children. The

matter was certified to the Orphans’ Court by the Register of Wills. See 20

Pa.C.S.A. § 907 (Certification of records to court.) 7

---

5 Mary also asked the court to find that Michael and Joseph had committed

perjury and were in contempt of court orders. The court denied this request.

6 This matter was initially presided over by the Honorable Katherine B.L. Platt

until 2021, when the case was reassigned to the Honorable Bret M. Binder.

7 Section 907 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code provides, in
relevant part, as follows:

Whenever a caveat shall be filed or a dispute shall arise before the
register concerning the probate of a will, the grant of letters[,] or
the performance of any other function by the register, he may
certify . . . the entire record to the court, which shall proceed to a
determination of the issue in dispute.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-5-
J-A25007-25

The court held evidentiary hearings and the parties agreed to

incorporate “prior testimony, proceedings, and court orders from the various

matters between the parties, including the guardianship proceedings

concerning [Mrs. Bush].” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 12/31/24, at 3-4. On

December 31, 2024, the Orphans’ Court entered an order declaring the 2007

Will legally inoperative on the basis of testamentary incapacity and undue

influence and directed that the 2004 Will be admitted to probate. Mary raises

the following claims for our review:8

[1.] Did the Orphans’ Court err as a matter of law or abuse its
discretion by relying on a 2011 guardianship opinion to
retroactively invalidate the 2007 Will, despite unrefuted evidence
that the guardianship proceedings remained ongoing, incomplete,
and contested until 2021, in that the 2011 order and opinion post-
dated the 2007 Will by four years, and that [D]ecedent[] was not
present or afforded the statutory protections under 20 [Pa.C.S.A.]
§ 5511(a)?[9]

---

20 Pa.C.S.A. § 907.

8 The Orphans’ Court did not direct Mary to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal.

9 Mary’s disjointed, rambling, nearly incoherent argument as to this claim,
inter alia, attempts to relitigate the 2011 guardianship proceedings,
challenges the credentials of various doctors who have offered testimony in
various proceedings, accuses attorneys of withholding evidence from Judge
Platt, and references random medical appointments attended by Mrs. Bush.
Mary presents no discernable, cogent argument, supported by relevant case
law and citations to the certified record, that would enable us to perform
meaningful appellate review of this claim. Accordingly, we find it waived. See
Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006) (arguments not
appropriately developed are waived on appeal). Moreover, to the extent that
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-6-
J-A25007-25

[2.] Did the Orphans’ Court commit an error of law and abuse its
discretion by failing to find that [Decedent] had testamentary
capacity when executing the 2007 Will, despite uncontroverted
evidence, including sworn testimony from the drafting attorney
and treating physician, and over 800 pages of supporting
documentation—demonstrating her sound mind and intent, and
by instead relying improperly on a 2011 guardianship opinion,
contrary to the legal standard that capacity must be assessed at
the time of execution?

[3.] Did the Orphans’ Court err as a matter of law or abuse its
discretion by using the first guardianship opinion as evidence that
[Decedent] was under undue influence by [Mary] when the
evidence contradicts that the sons were aggressively pursuing
[Decedent] for financial control over her?

[4.] Did the Orphans’ Court err as a matter of law or abuse its
discretion by admitting an unverified copy of the 2004 Will drafted
by interested parties and executed under emotionally coercive
circumstances while disregarding two later attorney-drafted
[w]ills from 2006 and 2007, thereby violating the legal
presumption that the most recent validly executed [w]ill reflects
the [D]ecedent’s true and final testamentary intent? [10]

Brief of Appellant, at i.

---

Mary attempts to challenge the Orphans’ Court’s determination that Decedent
lacked testamentary capacity, the argument garners her no relief. Even
assuming, as Mary argues, that Decedent possessed testamentary capacity at
the time she executed the wills in question, the “weakened mentality as
relevant to undue influence need not amount to testamentary incapacity.” In
re Estate of Byerley, 284 A.3d 1225, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2022). Thus,
Decedent’s testamentary capacity is irrelevant where we affirm solely on the
Orphans’ Court’s finding that Decedent was subject to Mary’s undue influence
at the time she executed the wills in question. See discussion, infra.

10 Our review of the certified record in this matter reveals that Mary did not

raise in the Orphans’ Court any issue regarding the validity of the photocopy
of the 2004 Will or the presumption of its revocation. Moreover, Mary’s brief
does not contain a statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c), directing us to
the place in the record where she raised or preserved the issue. Accordingly,
this claim is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (issues not raised in trial court are
waived and cannot be raised for first time on appeal).

-7-
J-A25007-25

Although this case was initiated as a caveat before the Register of Wills,

it is, in substance, a will contest. It is well-settled that the appropriate scope

and standard of review on appeal from a decree of the Orphans’ Court

adjudicating an appeal from probate is as follows:

In a will contest, the hearing judge determines the credibility of
the witnesses. The record is to be reviewed in the light most
favorable to appellee, and review is to be limited to determining
whether the [Orphans’] [C]ourt’s findings of fact were based upon
legally competent and sufficient evidence and whether there is an
error of law or abuse of discretion. Only where it appears from a
review of the record that there is no evidence to support the
court’s findings or that there is a capricious disbelief of evidence
may the court’s findings be set aside.

In re Estate of Schumacher, 133 A.3d 45, 49-50 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation

omitted). We “will not lightly find reversible error and will reverse an Orphans’

Court decree only if the [O]rphans’ [C]ourt applied an incorrect rule of law or

reached its decision on the basis of factual conclusions unsupported by the

record.” In re Jerome Markowitz Trust, 71 A.3d 289, 298 (Pa. Super.

2013).

Mary raises four claims for our review; however, our resolution of her

third claim is dispositive of the entire appeal. Mary claims that the Orphans’

Court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in finding that the 2007

Will was the product of undue influence.11 Mary argues that she was not in a

---

11 The phrasing of this issue in Mary’s statement of questions involved
suggests that she intended to raise an argument that the law of the case
doctrine or collateral estoppel does not apply with respect to Judge Platt’s
2011 finding that, as of 2006, Mrs. Bush was subject to undue influence by
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-8-
J-A25007-25

confidential relationship with Decedent and there is “no credible evidence that

Mary exercised control or dominion over her mother.” Brief of Appellant, at

1. Mary concedes that she receives a substantial benefit under the 2007

Will, but argues that “this benefit reflects [Decedent’s] intentional response to

the misconduct of her sons, who attempted to control her finances and

personal decisions following the death of her husband[.]” Id. Finally, Mary

claims that there is “no evidence that [she] actively participated in procuring

the will” and that her “role was passive, and the creation of the will was

consistent with [Decedent’s] independent desires.” Id. She is entitled to no

relief.

This Court has previously summarized the law pertaining to claims of

undue influence as follows:

“The resolution of a question as to the existence of undue
influence is inextricably linked to the assignment of the
burden of proof.” In re Estate of Clark, [] 334 A.2d 628,
632 ([Pa.] 1975). Once the proponent of the will in question
establishes the proper execution of the will, a presumption
of lack of undue influence arises; thereafter, the risk of non-
persuasion and the burden of coming forward with evidence
of undue influence shift to the contestant. Id. The
contestant must then establish, by clear and convincing
evidence, a prima facie showing of undue influence by
demonstrating that: (1) the testator suffered from a
weakened intellect; (2) the testator was in a confidential
relationship with the proponent of the will; and (3) the

---

Mary. However, Mary does not pursue that issue in the argument section of
her brief pertaining to undue influence. Accordingly, the issue is waived. See
In re Estate of Anderson, 317 A.3d 997, 1003 (Pa. Super. 2024) (issue
identified on appeal but not developed in appellant’s brief is abandoned and,
therefore, waived).

-9-
J-A25007-25

proponent receives a substantial benefit from the will in
question. Id. Once the contestant has established each
prong of this tripartite test, the burden shifts again to the
proponent to produce clear and convincing evidence which
affirmatively demonstrates the absence of undue influence.
Id.

In re Est. of Smaling, 80 A.3d 485, 493 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(footnote omitted).
...

In Owens[ v. Mazzei, 847 A.2d 700 (Pa. Super. 2004)], we
observed:

Our Supreme Court has cautioned that weakened mentality
as relevant to undue influence need not amount to
testamentary incapacity. Consequently, the grantor’s
mental condition at the moment he authorized the transfer
of his property is not as significant when reflecting upon
undue influence as it is when reflecting upon testamentary
capacity. [When the challenge is based on undue influence,]
more credence and weight may be given to the contestant’s
remote medical testimony. Although our cases have not
established a bright-line test by which weakened intellect
can be identified to a legal certainty, they have recognized
that it is typically accompanied by persistent confusion,
forgetfulness and disorientation. The Orphans’ Court’s
mandate in assessing such evidence is relatively broad. If
the court’s decision rests upon legally competent and
sufficient evidence, we will not revisit its conclusions. Under
no circumstance will we substitute our judgment of
credibility for that of the Orphans’ Court.

[Id.] at 707 (citations [and quotation marks omitted]).

In re Estate of Byerley, 284 A.3d at 1237.

In her June 24, 2011 opinion, Judge Platt made the following findings in

relation to Appellees’ request to invalidate the 2006 POA on the basis of undue

influence:

The evidence shows that Mary has been in a confidential
relationship with Mrs. Bush since at least 2005. As stated above,
after [her husband’s] death, Mrs. Bush became completely

• 10 - J-A25007-25

dependent on Mary for her daily needs. Mary made the decisions
regarding Mrs. Bush’s interaction with family members and
friends, her meals, transportation, house repairs[,] and finances.
[Mary] consciously isolated [Mrs. Bush] from her family, using
threats of suicide to keep her mother in line.

A confidential relationship exists when the circumstances
make it certain that the parties did not deal on equal terms,
but[,] on the one side there is an overmastering influence,
or, on the other, weakness, dependence[,] or trust,
justifiably reposed. It is marked by such a disparity in
position that the inferior party places complete trust in the
superior party’s advice and seeks no other counsel, so as to
give rise to a potential abuse of power. The clearest
indication of a confidential relationship is that an individual
has given power of attorney over her savings and finances
to another party.

In re Estate of Fritts, 906 A.2d 601, 608 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(citations omitted).
...

In the context of testamentary documents, an adjudication of
mental [incapacity] near the date of execution of a will does not
necessarily prove lack of testamentary capacity. In re Estate of
Vanoni, 798 A.2d 203 , 207 [(citations
omitted)]. Here, the same is true for the execution of a [POA].
Although [the scrivener] believed Mrs. Bush to be competent to
execute the [POA], he never saw Mrs. Bush independent of Mary.
He stated that Mary left the room while he spoke to Mrs. Bush but
it was clear that Mary drove her mother to the meeting and
brought her to [the scrivener’s] office. Based on Mary’s increasing
control of Mrs. Bush since the time of [her husband’s] death, it is
likely that Mary told Mrs. Bush what to say to [the scrivener].
Without Mary’s presence to prompt her, Mrs. Bush was unable to
answer even the most basic questions at her deposition and [at]
trial. I credit [the opinion of Bruce Mapes, Ph.D.] that Mrs. Bush
was mentally impaired in 2006. I find that the 2006 [POA] was a
result of Mary’s overmastering influence on Mrs. Bush[; t]hus, [it]
is void, ab initio.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/24/11, at 35-37 (reformatted; heading omitted).

• 11 - J-A25007-25

Judge Platt’s determination that Decedent was in a confidential

relationship with Mary as of at least 2005 and suffered from a weakened

intellect as of 2006 was affirmed on appeal by this Court, which incorporated

Judge Platt’s opinion in its analysis. See In re Bush, 2726 EDA 2011 (Pa.

Super. filed June 11, 2012) (unpublished memorandum decision).

In reaching his decision in the instant matter regarding the validity of

the 2006 and 2007 Wills, Judge Binder not only considered Judge Platt’s

previously affirmed determination regarding undue influence, but also—

pursuant to the agreement of the parties—took into consideration all prior

proceedings, testimony, and orders in this longstanding dispute. Judge Binder

also held multiple hearings. Having considered the testimony elicited at those

hearings, as well as the Orphans’ Court record dating back nearly fifteen

years, Judge Binder concluded as follows:

Here, there is no doubt that [Mrs. Bush] suffered from a weakened
intellect from at least 2006 on. Moreover, there is no doubt that
[Mrs. Bush] was in a confidential relationship with Mary at the
time[,] upon whom [Mrs. Bush] was entirely dependent. Mary
additionally prohibited or interfered with the ability of any of her
siblings [to] assist[] or hav[e] a material relationship with [Mrs.
Bush]. Lastly, the 2006 and 2007 Will[s] would leave all of [Mrs.
Bush’s] assets to Mary. Accordingly, the 2006 and 2007 Wills are
invalid due to undue influence.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 12/31/24, at 11.

Upon review of the voluminous record in this matter, we conclude that

the record fully supports Judge Binder’s conclusion that the 2006 and 2007

Wills were the product of undue influence exercised by Mary upon Decedent.

• 12 - J-A25007-25

We can discern no error of law, and the court’s credibility determinations are

supported in the record. Markowitz Trust, supra. Accordingly, we affirm.12

Order affirmed.

Date: 3/3/2026

---

12 Because we conclude that Judge Binder did not err in concluding that
Decedent’s 2006 and 2007 Wills were invalid as the product of undue
influence, we need not address Mary’s claim regarding the court’s finding as
to testamentary incapacity.

• 13 -