Estate of: I. Wilner Appeal of: Baker, L.
2016 Pa. LEXIS 1509
| Pa. | 2016Background
- Decedent executed a will in June 2007 drafted by Attorney Welles; two subscribing witnesses (Welles and Fitze’s secretary) were present and a conformed copy was retained by Welles and a copy given to Decedent.
- Decedent later executed codicils in April 2010; originals remained in the house when the original will later went missing after Decedent’s death in March 2011.
- Baker (caregiver) sought to probate Welles’s conformed copy plus the original codicils; Appellee (Decedent’s niece and intestate heir) objected and the matter proceeded to the orphans’ court.
- Orphans’ court admitted the conformed copy after finding the presumption of revocation rebutted and crediting Welles’s testimony as to execution and content; Superior Court reversed under the two-witness rule for lost wills.
- Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the statutory requirement that "all wills shall be proved by the oaths or affirmations of two competent witnesses" requires two witnesses to prove the contents of a lost will.
Issues
| Issue | Baker's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 20 Pa.C.S. § 3132 requires two witnesses to prove the contents of a lost will | §3132 is silent on lost wills; statutory text and equities permit judicially crafted standard; two-witness rule should not apply to contents here | §3132 mandates two-witness proof for all wills, including lost wills, so two witnesses must prove contents | Section 3132 applies to lost wills but only in the narrow, technical sense of proving due execution/signatures; it does not require two witnesses to prove the contents of a lost will |
| If §3132 does not govern contents, what standard should courts apply to prove contents of a lost will | Flexible judicial standard; admit conformed copy when credible evidence (e.g., drafting attorney’s authenticated copy) meets heightened proof | Two-witness rule (Hodgson) should control; statutory history supports requiring two witnesses to contents | Replaces Hodgson’s absolute two-witness-for-contents rule with a judicially-created clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for proving contents of lost wills |
| Whether Hodgson’s Estate remains binding | Overrules Hodgson’s application requiring two witnesses to prove contents because it yields unreasonable results when applied rigidly | Hodgson’s rule reflects longstanding legislative/ judicial policy and should remain mandatory | Hodgson’s holding that §3132 requires two witnesses to prove contents is disapproved; Hodgson’s rationale as to contents is not followed |
| Whether the orphans’ court’s admission of the conformed copy was proper under the adopted standard | The conformed copy, authenticated by the disinterested drafting attorney and corroborated by codicils and credibility findings, met clear-and-convincing evidence | Insists two witnesses were required and single-witness proof of contents is insufficient | The Supreme Court reversed Superior Court; remanded to reinstate orphans’ court order admitting the conformed copy under the clear-and-convincing standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodgson’s Estate, 270 Pa. 210 (discussed and disapproved as requiring two witnesses to prove contents of a lost will)
- Harrison’s Estate, 316 Pa. 15 (prior statement of two-witness requirement for lost wills)
- In re Wilson’s Estate, 364 Pa. 488 (statutory interpretation of proof requirements for execution of wills)
- Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 576 Pa. 101 (definition and explanation of the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)