293 A.3d 643
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- Decedent Terri Garbutt died testate (Oct. 13, 2019); her will named her brother, Jacob Enderes, as executor and sole beneficiary.
- Surviving spouse Herbert Garbutt Jr. is incapacitated and represented by court‑appointed co‑guardians (Glenn and Joan Garbutt); co‑guardians retained counsel (McKenna).
- Co‑guardians sought to exercise the spousal elective share and to establish a special‑needs trust qualifying for DHS/Medicaid; counsel and executor exchanged emails from Dec. 2019 through May 2020 about assets and trust approval.
- Pennsylvania courts were largely closed and filing deadlines suspended during the COVID‑19 judicial emergency (Mar. 18–June 1, 2020); McKenna’s office was closed and lacked staff.
- The spousal election was filed June 15, 2020 (after the six‑month statutory deadline measured from probate and 14 days after the judicial emergency ended). Executor Enderes moved to strike the election as untimely; the orphans’ court denied the motion, equitably tolling the deadline to avoid gross injustice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Enderes) | Defendant's Argument (Co‑guardians/McKenna) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 6‑month statutory election period (20 Pa.C.S.A. §2210(b)) can be tolled/extended for the late election | Statutory 6‑month period is mandatory; no fraud/duress alleged; election waived if not timely filed | Extraordinary COVID‑19 closures, suspended filing deadlines, counsel’s office closure, and ongoing negotiations justified equitable tolling | Court affirmed: equitable tolling/short extension allowed; election accepted |
| Whether failure to file a formal extension application within the statutory window bars relief | No timely application was filed, so statute’s grant to extend was not invoked | Even without a formal timely application, court may depart from deadline to avoid inequity under statute and its commentary | Court held absence of a formal in‑time application did not preclude equitable relief under these circumstances |
| Whether accepting the late election would produce unfair harm to the estate/heirs versus public‑interest harm from denying it | Executor: late election prejudices estate beneficiaries (legatees) and allows them to be displaced | Denying election risks loss of Medicaid/DPW benefits for an incapacitated spouse and shifts costs to the public; counsel diligently pursued election | Court weighed public‑interest and incapacity factors and found tolling necessary to avoid gross injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Jabbour, 276 A.3d 1180 (Pa. 2022) (discusses elective share and that courts may waive statutory period to avoid gross injustice)
- In re Wyinegar, 711 A.2d 492 (Pa. Super. 1998) (guardian may elect for an incompetent spouse; failure to elect can jeopardize public benefits)
- In re McCutcheon’s Estate, 128 A. 843 (Pa. 1925) (statutory election requirements may be waived by agreement or equitable considerations)
- Kurtas v. Kurtas, 555 A.2d 804 (Pa. 1989) (procedural time limits are not necessarily jurisdictional)
- Hart v. Philadelphia Inquirer, PBC, 258 A.3d 519 (Pa. Super. 2021) (recognizes effect of COVID‑19 judicial emergency on court operations and deadlines)
- In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for orphans’ court factual findings and legal conclusions)