Gregury, J. v. Greguras, S.
1467 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs John Gregury and Barbara Robey (children) sued their stepmother Shirley Greguras, the Estate of Adolph Greguras (decedent), attorney James Yingst, and his firm, alleging they were wrongfully deprived of funds held in joint accounts after the decedent’s death.
- Yingst prepared wills for Shirley and decedent in 2000; decedent died in 2007. In 2004 the couple opened two certificates of deposit and had an existing joint checking account; these accounts had significant balances at decedent’s death and passed outside the will.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims including fraud (to overcome survivorship under the Multiple-Party Accounts Act), intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), punitive damages, and alleged improper conduct by Shirley and Yingst.
- A pretrial discovery dispute arose over assertions of attorney–client privilege by Yingst and/or Shirley; at trial Shirley waived privilege and defense counsel referenced previously-privileged communications. Plaintiffs moved for mistrial/curative instruction; the trial court denied the motion.
- The trial court granted a nonsuit at the close of plaintiffs’ case, concluding plaintiffs failed to present clear and convincing evidence of fraud to overcome the Pennsylvania Multiple-Party Accounts Act (MPAA), lacked expert proof for IIED causation, and offered no basis for punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver of attorney–client privilege at trial required mistrial/curative relief | Plaintiffs argued they were ambushed: defendants asserted privilege in discovery/depositions but waived it at trial, revealing content they had declined to testify about earlier | Defendants said privilege was Shirley’s to waive, waiver occurred before testimony, and plaintiffs knew the privilege issues pretrial and could have moved in limine | Court denied mistrial; dissent would have affirmed nonsuit and found no abuse of discretion in denial of mistrial (trial court said prior instruction sufficed) |
| Whether joint accounts passed to Shirley or to decedent’s estate under MPAA | Plaintiffs argued testamentary intent or fraud could bring accounts into estate despite joint titling | Defendants said MPAA grants survivorship to surviving joint owner absent clear and convincing evidence of intent/fraud to the contrary | Court applied MPAA: joint accounts belong to surviving joint owner; plaintiffs presented no clear and convincing evidence of fraud, so accounts passed to Shirley |
| Sufficiency of fraud claim to overcome survivorship rule | Plaintiffs contended Yingst/Shirley committed fraud or breach that prevented access to funds and evidenced intent contrary to joint title | Defendants argued no evidence of fraud and no probative evidence of decedent’s contemporaneous intent when accounts were created | Court found plaintiffs failed to prove fraud; nonsuit proper on fraud claim |
| IIED and punitive damages; need for expert proof | Plaintiffs sought IIED and punitive damages based on alleged outrageous conduct and emotional harm | Defendants argued IIED requires expert causation evidence and punitive damages lacked basis without outrageous conduct | Court nonsuited IIED for lack of required expert medical proof and nonsuited punitive damages for lack of supporting evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Bugosh v. Allen Refractories Co., 932 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for mistrial decisions and abuse of discretion)
- Sinclair by Sinclair v. Block, 633 A.2d 1137 (Pa. 1993) (nonsuit review standard; view plaintiff's evidence as true and draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor)
- Taliferro v. Johns-Manville Corp., 617 A.2d 796 (Pa. Super. 1992) (nonsuit and sufficiency principles)
- Moran v. G. & W.H. Corson, Inc., 586 A.2d 416 (Pa. Super. 1991) (admissibility of evidence is within trial court discretion)
- In re Estate of Boardman, 80 A.3d 820 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussing nonsuit and evidentiary standards)
- Wecht v. P.G. Publishing Co., 725 A.2d 788 (Pa. 1999) (requirements for IIED causation and need for medical proof)
- McCann v. Amy Joy Donut Shops, 472 A.2d 1149 (Pa. Super. 1984) (IIED proof requirements)
- Kazatsky v. King David Memorial Park, Inc., 527 A.2d 988 (Pa. 1987) (scope of IIED and required evidence)
- Hoffman v. Brandywine Hosp., 661 A.2d 397 (Pa. Super. 1995) (medical records alone insufficient for causation; expert reports required)