Estate of Gentry v. Diamond Rock Hill Realty, LLC
111 A.3d 194
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Devlin is the executor of Patricia Amelie Logan Gentry’s estate and was empowered to sell the Bucks County property under the Decedent’s 2011 will.
- Decedent’s will provided a $20,000 share from net sale proceeds to Cynthia Gentry, granddaughter.
- A deed purporting to convey the Property to Diamond Rock Hill Realty, LLC was executed August 17, 2011, but Decedent died July 17, 2011, making the conveyance facially suspect.
- North Carolina probated the will on October 19, 2011, appointing Devlin as executor; Devlin filed a petition in Bucks County orphans’ court for citation on July 17, 2013 seeking return of the Property or damages.
- The orphans’ court dismissed Diamond’s and Alpert’s preliminary objections for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; Devlin appealed, and the court reversed, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the orphans’ court have subject matter jurisdiction over Devlin’s petition? | Devlin argues §711 mandates exclusive administration and distribution of decedents’ estates in the orphans’ court. | Diamond contends the court lacks jurisdiction over the claims against it under the PEFC. | Yes; the orphans’ court has mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction under §711(1). |
| Is §711(1) mandatory/exclusive over administration and distribution of decedents’ estates? | Devlin contends §711(1) governs administration/distribution of both real and personal property, including disputes affecting title. | Diamond contends jurisdiction is not broad enough to include this dispute. | §711(1) mandates exclusive jurisdiction over administration/distribution of decedent’s real and personal property. |
| Should the court have exercised jurisdiction under §712 (nonmandatory) rather than dismiss? | Devlin asserts nonmandatory jurisdiction would apply to the determination of title transfer, justifying retention. | Diamond argues §712 is not applicable since the dispute concerns administration/distribution, not pass of title under the will. | No; §711 governs and §712 does not restrict §711’s reach here. |
| Was discovery and joinder of necessary/indispensable parties properly considered to preserve jurisdiction? | Devlin sought discovery to identify necessary parties and permit joinder where needed. | Diamond argues discovery is unnecessary for a jurisdictional ruling and would be premature. | The court erred in not addressing possible discovery/joinder; remand allows for due process. |
| Did the court err in not retaining jurisdiction to determine facts surrounding the deed execution? | Devlin argues facts about the deed (and who signed it) are relevant to title and administration. | Diamond asserts the preliminary objections framework forecloses fact-finding at this stage. | Jurisdictional error; remand to address factual questions consistent with the ruling on jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- De Lage Landen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Urban P’ship, LLC, 903 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for reviewing preliminary objections; de novo on jurisdiction)
- Filipovich v. J.T. Imports, Inc., 637 A.2d 314 (Pa. Super. 1994) (well-pled facts accepted; against demurrer context)
- Aronson v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 767 A.2d 564 (Pa. Super. 2001) (definition and scope of subject matter jurisdiction)
- In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2003) (amendment of pleadings when defects exist)
- In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241 (Pa. 2011) (trust/estate title disputes; court’s reach)
- Grom v. Burgoon, 672 A.2d 823 (Pa. Super. 1996) (subject matter jurisdiction principles)
- Bernhard v. Bernhard, 668 A.2d 546 (Pa. Super. 1995) (jurisdiction and court authority principles)
- Verholek v. Verholek, 741 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1999) (jurisdictional framework and authority)
- B.J.D. v. D.L.C., 19 A.3d 1081 (Pa. Super. 2011) (amendment and procedural route in appeals)