In Re: Estate of Henry Stephens
2939 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Decedent Henry Stephens executed a will on June 9, 2010 naming his fourth wife, Betty Stephens, sole beneficiary (if she survived 30 days) and executrix; the will specifically listed several real properties including 821 S. 57th St. and 28 N. Lindenwood St.
- Henry died August 12, 2015; Betty received letters testamentary January 26, 2016 after Appellant Richard C. Stephens withdrew informal and formal caveats in January 2016 following negotiation.
- Appellant filed a post-probate appeal (Feb. 23, 2016) seeking to invalidate the will, alleging forgery of a deed (821 S. 57th St.), that two properties actually belonged to Henry Jr., undue influence by Betty, and lack of testamentary capacity; Appellant submitted 45 exhibits but called no witnesses at trial.
- At trial appellee’s counsel stipulated that the North Lindenwood property was incorrectly included in the will; the orphans’ court denied Appellant’s petition on Aug. 11, 2016 and denied his post-trial motion Sept. 6, 2016.
- On appeal the Superior Court found Appellant’s brief seriously noncompliant with Pennsylvania appellate rules (content, citation, formatting, page limits), dismissed the appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 2101, and affirmed the orphans’ court—additionally noting that merits review would not have altered the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of will based on alleged forgery/ownership of properties | Appellant: deeds to certain properties were forged (821 S. 57th) or never belonged to decedent, so will is defective | Appellee: stipulated one property was wrongly listed; otherwise disputed forgery/ownership claims unsupported | Court: appeal dismissed for defective brief; orphans' court decision affirmed; merits lack basis to overturn |
| Undue influence | Appellant: Betty, much younger fourth wife, unduly influenced decedent to include properties | Appellee: no adequate evidence of undue influence presented at trial | Held: no reversible error; orphans’ court findings supported by record |
| Testamentary capacity | Appellant: decedent had dementia/Alzheimer’s and lacked capacity when will executed | Appellee: no competent evidence presented to prove incapacity at execution | Held: no error shown; orphans’ court credibility findings upheld |
| Procedural adequacy of appellate brief | Appellant: raised many issues and submitted exhibits but failed to follow rules | Appellee: brief noncompliant; prevented meaningful review | Held: Superior Court dismissed appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 2101; affirmed trial court order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Estate of Fuller, 87 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for orphans’ court factual findings and legal conclusions)
- In re: Estate of Devoe, 74 A.3d 264 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate modification limited to unsupported findings or legal error)
- Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2006) (pro se litigant must comply with procedural rules)
- Branch Banking & Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quashing appeals when appellate rules ignored and meaningful review is prevented)
- Sanford, 445 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 1982) (courts will not consider issues not properly raised and developed in briefs)
- Estate of Lakatosh, 656 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Super. 1995) (observations on appellate advocacy and the pitfalls of raising excessive issues)
- United States v. Hart, 693 F.2d 286 (3d Cir. 1982) (criticizing inordinate number of meritless objections on appeal)