Estate of Schermer, E., Appeal of: Schermer, M.
366 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 2, 2017Background
- Decedent Evelyn Schermer executed a will on June 7, 2010 leaving her entire residuary estate to middle son Marc and disinheriting elder sons Gary and Leland; Marc was admitted to probate and appointed executor.
- Gary and Leland appealed probate claiming the 2010 will was procured by Marc through undue influence and/or that Evelyn lacked testamentary capacity; the orphans’ court held multiple hearings and found undue influence (weakened intellect + confidential relationship + substantial benefit).
- Key factual findings credited by the orphans’ court: Evelyn had progressive cognitive decline beginning in the early 2000s, a 2007 dementia diagnosis, long‑term care coverage triggered for cognitive impairment, and extensive caretaker testimony describing confusion, disorientation, repetition, poor judgment, and dependence by 2009–2010.
- The will drafter (Mr. Rosenwasser) testified Evelyn had testamentary capacity during office meetings but admitted he did not test for weakened intellect or undue influence and saw her only intermittently.
- Two medical experts offered opposing opinions on weakened intellect; the court found both credible but relied on the daily caregivers’ lay testimony to conclude Evelyn exhibited persistent confusion/forgetfulness and thus a weakened intellect sufficient for undue influence.
- Appellant Marc challenged credibility weight assigned to caregivers, the drafter, and experts, and disputed the factual basis for disinheritance; the Superior Court affirmed the orphans’ court, deferring to its credibility determinations and legal analysis of undue influence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Marc) | Defendant's Argument (Gary & Leland / Orphans' Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether caregivers’ testimony could establish "weakened intellect" tied to undue influence | Caregivers were indefinite about timing relative to June 7, 2010 and thus cannot prove weakened intellect at execution | Weakened intellect for undue influence can be shown by remote/continuous history; caregivers observed persistent decline before and after the will | Court held caregivers’ testimony probative; remote history may establish weakened intellect and supports undue influence finding |
| Whether drafter’s testimony (Rosenwasser) showed no weakened intellect | Rosenwasser’s office observations showed lucidity and testamentary capacity, so his testimony should outweigh caregivers | Drafter only assessed testamentary capacity during few office meetings, did not evaluate weakened intellect or undue influence; limited contact made his testimony unhelpful on weakened intellect | Court found Rosenwasser’s testimony relevant to testamentary capacity but not dispositive on weakened intellect; credited limited scope of his observations |
| Weight to give competing medical experts on weakened intellect | Marc: Dr. Bernstein’s opinions were unclear and not given to reasonable medical certainty; Dr. Martone showed no weakened intellect | Defendants: Dr. Bernstein, after reviewing records and case law, opined to reasonable medical certainty there was weakened intellect; court may weigh experts against lay evidence | Court accepted both experts were credible but chose to rely primarily on caregivers’ consistent lay observations; expert conflict did not undermine undue influence finding |
| Whether reasons stated in the 2010 will (disinheritance) were plausible, rebutting undue influence inference | Marc: Disinheritance reflected rational, longstanding estrangement and legitimate grievances; prior wills show similar intent, rebutting undue influence | Gary & Leland: Evidence shows they did not coerce or alienate grandchildren; 2009 will still provided equal shares despite the 2008 events, undermining the proffered reasons | Court concluded credited evidence showed the asserted reasons were unreliable and that other proof of weakened intellect and confidential relationship supported undue influence; affirmed invalidation of the 2010 will |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Hain, 346 A.2d 774 (Pa. 1975) (executor lacking aggrievement generally cannot appeal probate decisions)
- In re Faust's Estate, 73 A.2d 369 (Pa. 1950) (executor not a party to will contest for estate expense purposes)
- In re Estate of Smaling, 80 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. 2013) (elements and proof of undue influence; weakened intellect need not equal testamentary incapacity)
- In re Ziel's Estate, 59 A.2d 728 (Pa. 1948) (undue influence principles cited in Smaling)
- In re Estate of Harrison, 745 A.2d 676 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard of review for orphans’ court findings)
- In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2003) (deferential appellate review of orphans’ court factual findings)
- In re Fiedler, 132 A.3d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review reiterated)
- In re Estate of Angle, 777 A.2d 114 (Pa. Super. 2001) (testamentary capacity discussion; lack of confidential relationship can defeat undue influence claim)
- Owens v. Mazzei, 847 A.2d 700 (Pa. Super. 2004) (consideration of pre- and post‑transaction behavior when assessing weakened intellect)
- Burns v. Kabboul, 595 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Super. 1991) (prior will with same disposition is evidence against undue influence)
- Brown v. Trinidad, 111 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2015) (factfinder may accept or reject expert and lay testimony in whole or in part)