Estate of Fuller
87 A.3d 330
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Whitmore, as personal representative of Cynthia Fuller’s estate, petitioned to forfeit Paul Fuller’s intestate share under 20 Pa.C.S. § 2106(b).
- Decedent Cynthia Fuller died intestate in 2007 at age 17; Whitmore sought administration and later pursued the forfeiture petition.
- Orphans’ Court denied Whitmore’s petition on January 10, 2013; Whitmore filed exceptions and appealed.
- The appellate court held that § 2106(b) includes intentional willful abandonment and may consider intent to permanently abandon.
- Court affirmed the Orphans’ Court, concluding Fuller did not desert Decedent and that evidence supported no forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 2106(b) require willful intent to desert? | Whitmore contends the court erred by requiring intent to desert in 2106(b). | Fuller argues the court properly applied non-willful factors under the statute. | Yes, willful intent is within § 2106(b) interpretation. |
| Did Orphans’ Court misuse evidence re intent to abandon? | Whitmore claims court ignored willful abandonment evidence. | Fuller contends evidence shows no permanent desertion; credibility lies with court. | No abuse; findings supported by record. |
| Should Decedent’s wishes influence forfeiture under 2106(b)? | Whitmore asserts Decedent wished Whitmore to be sole heir, implying forfeiture should apply. | Fuller argues Decedent’s wishes are irrelevant per 2106(b) and Kistner. | Decedent’s wishes not considered; not controlling. |
| Was Fuller’s lack of contact for over a year decisive? | Whitmore contends no contact demonstrates desertion. | Fuller argues absence due to Decedent’s preference, not abandonment. | Evidence did not prove permanent desertion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Hooper, 80 A.3d 815 (Pa. Super. 2013) (deference to trial-court credibility; standard of review for factual findings)
- Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d 514 (Pa. 2013) (de novo review of legal conclusions under 2106(b))
- In re Kistner, 858 A.2d 1226 (Pa. Super. 2004) (consideration of Decedent’s wishes in forfeiture context)
- Teaschenko, 393 Pa. Super. 355, 574 A.2d 649 (Pa. Super. 1990) (precedent on support/desertion interpretations)
- Kirsch v. Pub. Sch. Emps.’ Ret. Bd., 603 Pa. 439, 985 A.2d 671 (Pa. 2009) (statutory interpretation guiding plain-language approach)
- Fogle v. Malvern Courts, Inc., 554 Pa. 633, 722 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1999) (dictionary-based interpretation for common usage of terms)
- Tooey v. AK Steel Corp., 81 A.3d 851 (Pa. 2013) (statutory language governs unless ambiguous)