History
  • No items yet
midpage
Estate of: Trust Under Deed of Kulig, D.
131 A.3d 494
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015
Read the full case

Background

  • Decedent (David P. Kulig) executed a revocable inter vivos trust on Jan. 12, 2001 (the Trust) for himself, his then‑wife Joanne, and their children; Joanne died in 2010.
  • Decedent executed a will on Dec. 13, 2010 (which did not provide for a future spouse) and married Mary Jo on Dec. 30, 2011; no prenuptial agreement was executed.
  • Decedent died Feb. 3, 2012; survivors: second wife Mary Jo and two children from his first marriage (the Kulig Children).
  • Mary Jo claimed an intestate spouse’s share as a pretermitted spouse under 20 Pa.C.S. § 2507(3) and sought to include the Trust corpus in calculating her share via 20 Pa.C.S. § 7710.2 (Uniform Trust Act rule of construction applying testamentary rules to inter vivos trusts).
  • The orphans’ court held that § 7710.2 imports the testamentary‑trust rule in § 2507(3) to apply to revocable inter vivos trusts and awarded Mary Jo one‑half of the Trust assets; the Kulig Children appealed.
  • The Superior Court affirmed, holding § 7710.2 (and its legislative/Uniform Law comments) authorize applying § 2507(3) to inter vivos trusts when appropriate (e.g., ambiguity regarding intent toward a pretermitted spouse).

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Kulig Children) Defendant's Argument (Mary Jo) Held
Whether § 7710.2 makes inter vivos trust assets subject to the pretermitted‑spouse rule of § 2507(3) § 7710.2's "as appropriate" limits incorporation; longstanding statutory scheme treats inter vivos trusts separately and § 7710.2 does not clearly import § 2507(3) § 7710.2 (with legislative/UTC comments) imports testamentary rules, so § 2507(3) can apply to revocable inter vivos trusts where appropriate Held: § 7710.2 applies; the rules of construction for testamentary trusts (including § 2507(3)) can be applied to inter vivos trusts when appropriate, so Mary Jo is entitled to one‑half of Trust assets
Whether § 2203 (spousal election) precludes applying § 2507(3) to inter vivos trusts § 2203 shows the legislature treated spousal rights in inter vivos trusts separately; statutes must be read in pari materia § 2203 is a distinct substantive right; § 7710.2 is a rule‑of‑construction import and need not be read in pari materia with § 2203 Held: § 2203 and § 2507 serve different purposes; § 7710.2's importation of construction rules does not conflict with § 2203
Whether the Uniform/Joint State Government Commission comments may be consulted to interpret § 7710.2 Comments cannot override text and "as appropriate" forbids broad use of comments to import § 2507(3) Comments (and UTC prefatory notes) are persuasive and expressly reference § 2507 as imported into § 7710.2 Held: Comments and UTC precedent are relevant and persuasive where the statute references the UTC and comments; they support applying § 2507(3)
Whether precedent from other states (e.g., Bell) controls interpretation Out‑of‑state decisions (Bell) are persuasive but not controlling; New Mexico statutory text differs Kulig Children rely on Bell to argue trust corpus need not be included Held: Bell is unpersuasive here because Pennsylvania's § 7710.2 and its comments differ from New Mexico's statute

Key Cases Cited

  • In re Vencil, 120 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2015) (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning and legislative intent)
  • Pilchesky v. Lackawanna Cnty., 88 A.3d 954 (Pa. 2014) (statutes relating to same subject must be read in pari materia)
  • Lessner v. Rubinson, 592 A.2d 678 (Pa. 1991) (official comments may be given weight in statutory construction)
  • In re McKinney, 67 A.3d 824 (Pa. Super. 2013) (treating UTC/UTA comments as relevant where statute references UTC)
  • Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh, 11 A.3d 960 (Pa. 2011) (resort to rules of construction only when a provision is ambiguous)
  • Commonwealth v. Brown, 741 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 1999) (pari materia rule explained)
  • Estate of Martin, 74 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1950) (authority for using legislative comments in interpreting PEF Code)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Estate of: Trust Under Deed of Kulig, D.
Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Dec 24, 2015
Citation: 131 A.3d 494
Docket Number: 2891 EDA 2014
Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.