In re Estate of Boardman
80 A.3d 820
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Decedent Etty C. Boardman died on August 2, 2008; her will was probated and Donna E. Ross was appointed executrix.
- On June 10, 2009, beneficiaries including granddaughter Season Purdy signed a Family Settlement Agreement (FSA) that reduced Purdy’s likely intestate/will share to about $3,000 (~5%).
- Purdy filed petitions (under 20 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3521 and 3501.1) alleging the FSA should be set aside for fraud, duress, or undue influence and sought accounting relief.
- At an August 8, 2012 orphans’ court hearing, after Purdy presented her case, the Estate moved for and the court granted a compulsory nonsuit.
- The orphans’ court found Purdy failed to prove fraud, duress, or undue influence; Purdy appeals that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Purdy) | Defendant's Argument (Estate/Donn a Ross) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FSA should be set aside for fraud | Purdy: Ross intentionally failed to tell her she was entitled to a larger share under the will, inducing signature | Estate: Purdy presented no clear, convincing evidence of misrepresentation or concealment causing reliance | Court: No fraud shown; nonsuit proper |
| Whether a confidential relationship (undue influence) existed | Purdy: She trusted her aunt and therefore dealt on unequal terms and relied on her advice | Estate: No evidence Ross had overmastering influence or Purdy’s dependence beyond ordinary family trust | Court: No confidential relationship/overmastering influence established |
| Whether Purdy’s failure to read documents or retain counsel vitiates relief | Purdy: Claimed she did not realize full impact because family context led her to rely on others | Estate: Failure to read or consult counsel is negligence, not a defense absent fraud | Court: Purdy’s failure to read FSA or will does not prove fraud; ordinary negligence cannot void agreement |
| Whether compulsory nonsuit was proper at close of plaintiff’s case | Purdy: Sufficient evidence for jury to infer fraud/undue influence | Estate: Plaintiff failed to introduce necessary elements for relief | Court: Nonsuit affirmed — plaintiff did not meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Keffer v. Bob Nolan’s Auto Service, Inc., 59 A.3d 621 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standards for compulsory nonsuit and appellate review)
- Moser v. DeSetta, 527 Pa. 157 (Pa. 1991) (fraud requires clear and convincing proof; concealment may constitute fraud)
- Germantown Sav. Bank v. Talacki, 441 Pa. Super. 513 (Pa. Super. 1995) (failure to read a contract is not a defense absent fraud)
- In re Estate of Brojack, 321 Pa. Super. 154 (Pa. Super. 1983) (family settlement agreements are strongly favored and upheld absent fraud)
- Owens v. Mazzei, 847 A.2d 700 (Pa. Super. 2004) (definition and elements of a confidential relationship/overmastering influence)