In Re: Est. of S.M.C., Appeal of: Cavallo, P.
1369 EDA 2024
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Shirley Maria Cavallo executed a will in 2011 naming her son Brondo as sole beneficiary and executor, with Attorney Hogan drafting and retaining the will.
- In 2018, after Shirley had a stroke, her daughter Pilar initiated but later abandoned guardianship proceedings.
- Shirley died in 2020; the 2011 will was probated, and Brondo was appointed executor without objection from any children at that time.
- Pilar later alleged that a subsequent (2014) will existed, dividing assets equally among the siblings and displacing Brondo as sole beneficiary, but could only produce an unsigned draft.
- The Orphans' Court trial heard conflicting evidence about the existence, signing, and alleged suppression or destruction of the purported 2014 will.
- The Orphans' Court found Pilar's evidence unpersuasive, ruled the 2014 will invalid/proven neither its existence nor fraudulent destruction, and affirmed probate of the 2011 will.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2014 Will | Sufficient evidence (notary’s journal; circumstances) proved Shirley executed a subsequent will revoking 2011 will | No reliable, credible evidence of a valid 2014 will or execution; 2011 will controls | No valid/proven 2014 will; 2011 will remains effective |
| Weight of Notary Journal | Journal entry reliably proves the will was signed and notarized | Entry not reliable: written by non-notary; not established as credible business record | Rejected notary journal as proof due to statutory, evidentiary deficiencies |
| Fraudulent Suppression | Brondo likely destroyed or withheld the 2014 will out of self-interest | No proof Brondo possessed or destroyed any signed 2014 will | No proof of fraudulent destruction or suppression |
| Applicability of Jones | Jones allows circumstantial/single-witness proof where one copy destroyed/suppressed | Facts distinguishable from Jones; record insufficient even if rule applied | Jones not controlling; Orphans’ Court’s factfinding stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Murphy, 8 Watts & Serg. 275 (Pa. 1844) (addresses proving existence of a lost/destroyed will and burden to prove fraudulent destruction)
- In re Estate of Brumbaugh, 170 A.3d 541 (Pa. Super. 2017) (sets standard of review for orphans’ court fact findings)
- In re Estate of Wilner, 142 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2016) (concerns requirements to prove a lost will)
- In re Estate of Janosky, 827 A.2d 512 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discusses presumption of revocation when original will not found)