It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to award counsel fees to the decedent’s daughter-in-law when her stepchildren removed jewelry from her home and a safe deposit box without her permission or the permission of her husband (the decedent’s son) and while she was hospitalized. Although the administrators of the estate did not remove the jewelry themselves, they were involved in the removal of the jewelry and their conduct could properly be found to be obdurate and vexatious. It was also not an abuse of discretion to fail to hold an evidentiary hearing on the fee petition when the issues surrounding the removal of the jewelry had already been fully litigated. The Orphans’ Court had personal jurisdiction over the administrators even though no citation had been served upon them because they had previously filed a petition on another issue and so had consented to the jurisdiction of the court. Finally, the fee petition was timely even though it was filed before the entry of the final order for the distribution of the estate. The appeal of the appellants was therefore denied, but the Superior Court denied additional counsel fees for the appeal, finding that the issues raised on appeal did not lack a basis in law or fact and the appeal was not dilatory, obdurate, or vexatious. In re: Estate of James G. Klingensmith, 550 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 4/29/2025) (non-precedential).