In Re: Estate of Adele M. Rich
139 A.3d 235
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Adele M. Rich was adjudicated incapacitated in 2008 and a guardian of her estate was appointed; she died in 2011 still incapacitated.
- Her 2007 will specifically devised six parcels of real estate to her three children; Alfred was the devisee of 126 East Berkeley Avenue.
- The guardian sold several assets (including 126 East Berkeley in 2009 for a net of $110,497.25) to pay for Adele’s care; proceeds were used for care and maintenance and largely exhausted before her death.
- After probate, Alfred petitioned the Orphans’ Court for a finding of nonademption seeking the net sale proceeds for 126 East Berkeley; the Orphans’ Court granted the petition and awarded Alfred the net sale price less any debt he owed the decedent.
- Francis (another child and executor) appealed, arguing that the devise adeemed because the proceeds were required and used for the incompetent decedent’s care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Francis) | Defendant's Argument (Alfred) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a specific devise of real estate sold by a guardian during the testator’s incapacity is adeemed when the sale proceeds were used to pay for the incapacitated person’s care | Sale proceeds used for necessary care cause ademption; Fox’s Estate supports that proceeds consumed for care are not preserved for the devisee | 20 Pa.C.S. § 2514(16.1) preserves the devisee’s right to the net sale price when property of an adjudicated incapacitated person is sold by a guardian | Devise was not adeemed; devisee entitled to net sale price under § 2514(16.1) (subject to offset for debt owed to decedent) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Fox, 431 A.2d 1008 (Pa. 1981) (interpreting § 2514(16.1) to preserve a devisee’s right to net sale proceeds when guardian sells specifically devised property of an incapacitated testator and holding that income from proceeds is not part of the devise)
- In re Estate of Miller, 18 A.3d 1163 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of appellate review for Orphans’ Court factual findings and legal conclusions)
- In re Ware, 814 A.2d 725 (Pa. Super. 2002) (discussion of deference to Orphans’ Court credibility findings)
- Lloyd v. Hart, 2 Pa. 473 (Pa. 1846) (historic rule on disposition of surplus proceeds from sale of an incapacitated person’s real estate; discussed but distinguished)