Estate of Sacchetti v. Appeal of Sacchetti
128 A.3d 273
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Decedent Mario Sacchetti married Kai Mui Yau (aka Linda Sacchetti) in December 2008; Mario executed a will and a prenuptial agreement shortly thereafter leaving real estate (2827 Bittern Ave) and $25,000 to Yau, remainder to nephew/executor Charles.
- Charles, as executor, petitioned the Orphans’ Court after Yau changed the house locks following Mario’s June 2011 death and after Yau negotiated checks and held title/ joint accounts.
- Evidence showed Yau had been married previously to Chan Cheung Kai; she filed for divorce from Kai in 2010 and obtained a decree in February 2011. Yau had earlier represented she was married in multiple legal documents.
- Forensic handwriting expert testified Mario’s signatures on several checks negotiated by Yau were forged; Charles also proved Yau removed property (coins, car) and negotiated nearly $27,000 from accounts.
- The Orphans’ Court found Charles credible, Yau not credible, declared the 2008 marriage void ab initio, voided the prenuptial agreement, set aside the deed and joint-account transfer, and struck the specific testamentary bequests to Yau; it ordered return of the property and funds to the estate.
- Yau appealed, arguing interpreter problems, that she was not previously married or that §1702 validated the marriage post-divorce, and that joint-account/tenancy-by-entireties rules protected her interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Charles) | Defendant's Argument (Yau) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interpreter inability required a new hearing | Hearing was fair; interpreter issues were limited and Yau spoke/understood English | Interpreter/dialect mismatch denied fair hearing | No new hearing; record shows no prejudice and Yau understood English |
| Validity of 2008 marriage | Marriage was void because Yau was legally married to Kai at the time | Yau denied prior marriage or claimed it was not a valid Hong Kong marriage | Marriage held void; trial court credited evidence of Yau’s prior marriage and admissions |
| Whether 23 Pa.C.S. §1702(a) made the marriage valid as of Yau’s 2011 divorce | Executor: §1702 inapplicable because parties did not "live together as husband and wife" after impediment removed | Yau: §1702 cures defect as of Feb 16, 2011 (post-divorce) | §1702 inapplicable — court found they did not live together as husband and wife after divorce and Mario filed for annulment shortly after |
| Whether transfers (deed, joint account) and testamentary bequests survived despite invalid marriage (incl. survivorship presumption under Multiple Party Account Act) | Transfers/bequests were conditional or procured by fraud; survivorship presumption rebutted | Transfers created joint-tenancy/right-of-survivorship or protected by 20 Pa.C.S. §6304(a) | Transfers and bequests voided under conditional-gifts and fraud principles; statutory survivorship presumption overcome by clear and convincing evidence of fraud and conditional transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Strahsmeier, 54 A.3d 359 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for Orphans’ Court factual findings and credibility)
- In re Estate of Zeevering, 78 A.3d 1106 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural review principles for Orphans’ Court decrees)
- Lindh v. Surman, 702 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 1997) (applying Restatement §58 on conditional gifts made in reliance on a relation)
- Riccelli v. Forcinito, 595 A.2d 1322 (Pa. Super. 1991) (deed interpretation and determining form of tenancy by intent)
- Semenza v. Alfano, 279 A.2d 29 (Pa. 1971) (conditional gifts/engagement-related transfers voidable when condition is breached)
- Pavlicic v. Vogtsberger, 136 A.2d 127 (Pa. 1957) (conditional gifts and recovery on breach of marriage promise)
- Nicholson v. Johnston, 855 A.2d 97 (Pa. Super. 2004) (down-payment gifts as conditional on marriage)
- In re Estate of Cella, 12 A.3d 374 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Multiple Party Account Act presumptions and rebuttal)
- In re Novosielski, 992 A.2d 89 (Pa. 2010) (policy behind statutory presumptions for joint accounts)
- In re Estate of Glover, 669 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996) (invalidating a specific bequest procured by theft/fraud)
- In re Alexander's Estate, 55 A. 797 (Pa. 1903) (fraud that misleads testator can invalidate testamentary dispositions)
- In re Stirk's Estate, 81 A. 187 (Pa. 1911) (specific bequest voided where testator was misled about legal effect)
- Covington v. Covington, 617 A.2d 1318 (Pa. Super. 1992) (interpretation of 23 Pa.C.S. §1702(a) — retroactive validation when parties live together as spouses after impediment removed)