In Re: Est. of: Schumacher, R., Sr.
133 A.3d 45
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Testator Robert H. Schumacher, Sr. executed a will and Special Needs Trust in 2010 leaving his estate in trust for his disabled son Bobby; Marianne Kreisher was named executrix/trustee and probate was opened on the 2010 will.
- Ralph and Kathleen Schumacher filed to probate an after-discovered will dated February 23, 2013 (the 2013 Will), which they had Ralph draft; the 2013 Will gave substantial benefits to Ralph and Kathleen and restructured the trust for Bobby with Ralph and Kathleen as co-trustees.
- Kreisher contested probate, alleging Testator lacked capacity and that Ralph unduly influenced Testator in executing the 2013 Will.
- At a hearing, medical and lay testimony described progressive dementia from about 2010–2013, a recent hospitalization and delirium, behavioral changes, and opportunities for Ralph to exert influence (daily visits, control of accounts, acting as advisor, drafting the will).
- The trial court found the 2013 Will the product of undue influence and denied probate; the Schumachers appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Kreisher to oppose probate | Schumachers argued Kreisher lacked standing to contest the 2013 Will | Kreisher (as 2010 Trust trustee) would be aggrieved by probate of the later will | Court: Kreisher has standing; claim waived and meritless |
| Recognition of power of attorney (Gregory Badger) | Schumachers argued the court failed to recognize Bobby’s POA/agent | No record showing Schumachers sought court recognition or how it affected validity of 2013 Will | Court: Issue waived/irrelevant; no relief |
| Enforcement of subpoena for Bobby (witness availability) | Schumachers said Bobby’s testimony was crucial and subpoena should have been enforced | Schumachers’ counsel withdrew request to keep record open and allowed record to close | Court: Claim waived because appellants withdrew request at trial |
| Undue influence / weakened intellect / confidential relationship | Schumachers disputed findings of weakened intellect and confidential relationship and argued testimony contradicted the court | Kreisher presented medical and lay evidence of progressive dementia, opportunistic involvement by Ralph, Ralph drafted will and received substantial benefit | Court: Trial court’s findings supported; established prima facie undue influence not rebutted; 2013 Will invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bosley, 26 A.3d 1104 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review in will contests)
- Burke v. Independence Blue Cross, 103 A.3d 1267 (Pa. 2014) (standing challenges must be raised at trial level or are waived)
- In re Estate of Ziel, 359 A.2d 728 (Pa. 1976) (elements and burden-shifting in undue influence claims)
- In re Estate of Clark, 334 A.2d 628 (Pa. 1975) (weakened intellect concept distinct from testamentary incapacity; remote mental history can be probative)
- In re Estate of Fritts, 906 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 2006) (characteristics of weakened intellect)
- Burns v. Kabboul, 595 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Super. 1991) (proponent as scrivener or present at dictation weighs against proponent on undue influence)
- Estate of Keiper, 454 A.2d 31 (Pa. Super. 1982) (confidential relationship defined by advisor/counselor role inspiring confidence)
- Biddle v. Johnsonbaugh, 664 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 1995) (parent/child relationship is a factor in confidential relationship analysis)