Estate of: Whitehead, J.
1219 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 18, 2017Background
- Decedent John C. Whitehead died testate in 2004; initial executrix was removed in 2009 and Kenneth L.R. Whitehead was appointed Administrator d.b.n. in 2013.
- Beneficiary Aaliyah Castro filed a Petition for a Citation (Oct. 2015) directing Kenneth to file an accounting of his administration; parties stipulated Kenneth would file an accounting within 30 days of court approval.
- The court approved the Stipulation on December 21, 2015, setting a deadline of January 20, 2016, for Kenneth to file the accounting or request more time.
- Kenneth did not file an accounting or request an extension; Aaliyah then filed a Petition to Remove him (March 2, 2016) and the orphans’ court removed Kenneth by decree dated March 14, 2016.
- Kenneth sought reconsideration and filed post-decree motions and an appeal to the Superior Court; he argued the court misapplied removal statutes and erred by removing him without a hearing or 20 days to object.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding removal was proper because Kenneth willfully failed to perform the court‑approved duty to file an accounting and he never sought a hearing or extension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was an abuse of discretion under 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 3182–3183 | Aaliyah: Removal appropriate because administrator failed to comply with court-approved Stipulation and statutory duties | Kenneth: Removal was an abuse; court relied on allegations and misapplied removal statutes | Affirmed—court did not abuse discretion; failure to file accounting justified removal |
| Whether a hearing was required before summary removal | Aaliyah: Not required where administrator breached an agreed, court‑approved duty | Kenneth: Wolongovich/Velott require a hearing before removal because allegations need evidentiary testing | Held hearing not required here—removal rested on admitted failure to comply with stipulation, not unresolved factual allegations |
| Whether court violated local rule requiring 20 days to object | Kenneth: Decree issued 13 days after petition mailed, denying 20‑day response period | Aaliyah: Removal based on missed stipulation deadline, not on petition allegations requiring a waiting period | Held no abuse—the court acted after plaintiff’s deadline had passed (54 days after accounting due) and Kenneth failed to raise objections in time |
| Whether court relied on unsupported allegations (royalties/sale of rights) | Kenneth: Court improperly accepted petition allegations as fact | Aaliyah: Court relied on record evidence of failure to file accounting, not unproven misconduct allegations | Held court did not rely on mere allegations; decision based on Kenneth’s admitted noncompliance with court order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Rich, 139 A.3d 235 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for orphans’ court decrees)
- In re Estate of Mumma, 41 A.3d 41 (Pa. Super. 2012) (removal of personal representative is within trial court’s discretion)
- Zampetti v. Cavanaugh, 176 A.2d 906 (Pa. 1962) (consent decrees bind parties like final decrees)
- In re Estate of Velott, 529 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 1987) (remand for hearing where factual allegations require evidentiary testing)
- Wolongovich v. Katalinic, 489 A.2d 248 (Pa. Super. 1985) (hearing required when record contains untested allegations)