The petitioner alleged that the decedent had entered into a contract with her husband not to change their wills, but the lawyer who was alleged to have written the contract had no record or recollection of preparing the contract, the testimony of the petitioner that the lawyer admitted preparing the contract was not credible, the contract did not appear to have been written by a lawyer, the notary who allegedly took the acknowledgments of the decedent and her husband was not called to testify, and the petitioner produced only a photocopy of the alleged contract, so the petitioner failed to meet her burden of production and burden of persuasion and the alleged contract was not admissible under the “best evidence” rule of Pa. R.E. 1003. MacRae Estate (No. 1), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 123 (Berks O.C. 2023) (decision and order); MacRae Estate (No. 2), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 135 (Berks O.C. 2023) (Pa. R.A.P. 1925 opinion), aff’d, 549 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 4/22/2024) (non-precedential).