Estate of: Hollis C. Gordon, Sr.
1175 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Decedent Hollis C. Gordon, Sr. executed two wills: a 2009 will (left $5.00 each to certain children) and a 2014 will (left those children nothing).
- Philadelphia Register of Wills admitted the 2014 will to probate on August 14, 2015; Georgia probate later admitted the 2009 will to probate on July 23, 2015 (Screven County).
- Petitioners (including James A. Gordon) filed multiple petitions challenging probate of the 2014 will; earlier petitions were dismissed without prejudice for pleading defects.
- Petitioners filed a Fifth Petition on September 1, 2016 (more than one year after the Register’s August 14, 2015 decree). Petitioners alleged fraud/forgery but offered only conclusory assertions.
- Orphans’ Court sustained preliminary objections: (1) Fifth Petition untimely under 20 Pa.C.S. § 908(a) and threadbare fraud allegations could not toll the one‑year limitation; (2) Petitioners lacked standing because invalidating the 2014 will would revive the 2009 will under which they received only a de minimis $5.00 bequest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probate may be attacked after the one‑year appeal period when petitioner alleges fraud on the Register of Wills | Gordon: fraud (forgery/that wills were not drafted by decedent) excuses or tolls the one‑year limit and warrants an evidentiary hearing | Canada: Fifth Petition filed >1 year after probate; allegations of fraud are threadbare, non‑specific, and fail to show newly discovered fraud that would toll the statute | Court: Petition untimely under 20 Pa.C.S. § 908(a); bald fraud allegations insufficient to toll or waive the one‑year limit; no hearing required |
| Whether intestate heirs who receive nothing under the probated will have standing to appeal when a prior will (if probated) gives them only a nominal bequest ($5.00) | Gordon: as heirs‑at‑law they may challenge the probated will | Canada: Petitioners would be effectively disinherited under the prior will (only $5.00 each), so they lack the substantial, direct interest required by § 908(a) | Court: Petitioners lack standing; a de minimis legacy does not confer the substantial interest necessary to challenge probate; court may raise standing sua sponte |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kirkander's Estate, 415 A.2d 26 (Pa. 1980) (specific forgery allegations can justify tolling/time extension and remand for evidentiary hearing)
- In re Kiger's Estate, 409 A.2d 5 (Pa. 1979) (statute not tolled where alleged fraud was known or should have been known within the one‑year period)
- Dempsey v. Figura, 542 A.2d 1388 (Pa. Super. 1988) (one‑year probate appeal limit cannot be set aside absent fraud on the court or Register of Wills)
- Estate of Briskman, 808 A.2d 928 (Pa. Super. 2002) (an intestate heir’s contingent or remote interest is insufficient to confer standing to appeal probate)
- In re Culbertson's Estate, 152 A. 540 (Pa. 1930) (prompt action upon discovery of forgery may justify relief despite statute of limitations)