Estate of Swackhammer, D. Appeal of: Swackhammer,R
Estate of Swackhammer, D. Appeal of: Swackhammer,R No. 323 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 22, 2017Background
- Decedent Donna Swackhammer died Jan. 26, 2015; she left a will (June 19, 2014) and a codicil (Jan. 19, 2015) naming her minor daughter as sole beneficiary and changing the testamentary guardian from one daughter to another.
- Brienne Marco was admitted as executrix and guardian of the minor’s estate; she also had temporary custody of the minor by separate custody proceedings.
- Randy L. Swackhammer (ex-husband, biological father) filed petitions challenging the probate of the codicil and seeking appointment of a guardian ad litem; Estate filed preliminary objections asserting he lacked standing based on a 2003 divorce consent agreement relinquishing rights to Donna’s estate.
- The Orphans’ Court sustained the Estate’s preliminary objections for lack of standing and denied appointment of a guardian ad litem on its own motion, finding no indication the appointed guardian was mishandling the estate or that estate funds required protection.
- Swackhammer appealed; the Superior Court reviewed whether the trial court properly decided standing on preliminary objections (no evidentiary hearing needed) and whether it abused discretion by not appointing a guardian ad litem.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Swackhammer) | Defendant's Argument (Estate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by deciding preliminary objections without an evidentiary hearing on standing | Court should have held an evidentiary hearing before dismissing his petitions | Standing can be resolved on the pleadings; no outside evidence required for preliminary objections | No error: standing challenges resolved on pleadings; no hearing required |
| Whether Swackhammer had standing to contest probate of the will/codicil | He contends he can challenge probate and can act on behalf of the minor child | He is not a beneficiary, lacks a pecuniary interest, and relinquished estate rights — thus not a "party in interest" under 20 Pa.C.S. §908(a) | No standing: he has no substantial, direct, immediate pecuniary interest; not a party in interest |
| Whether Swackhammer could act for the minor (bring action on minor’s behalf) | He argued the minor cannot challenge the will and he should act for her interests | He lacks custody and provided no authority or facts showing the minor requested his representation or that guardian is mishandling funds | Court rejected this basis: he failed to show authority or facts to represent minor; no standing through minor |
| Whether the court abused discretion by not appointing a guardian ad litem sua sponte | Trial court should have appointed a guardian ad litem for the minor (or let him be appointed/co-guardian) | No evidence the guardian was failing or that estate size justified appointing a guardian; appointment discretionary | No abuse of discretion: no indication GAL was needed; appointment not required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for Orphans’ Court decisions)
- In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2003) (party in interest standing in will contests)
- Rellick-Smith v. Rellick, 147 A.3d 897 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standards for sustaining preliminary objections)
- In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241 (Pa. 2011) (distinction between capacity to sue and standing)
- In re Estate of Briskman, 808 A.2d 928 (Pa. Super. 2002) (definition of substantial, direct, immediate interest for standing)