In re Estate of McDermott
37 Pa. D. & C.5th 328
| Pennsylvania Court of Common P... | 2014Background
- DPW filed a petition to compel transfer of assets from the Arlene L. McDermott Real Estate Protector Trust to decedent's probate estate.
- Cheryl Breen and John McDermott II were appointed plenary co-guardians of the decedent's person and estate in Lycoming County Orphan’s Court after a 2008 guardianship petition.
- Prior to guardianship, the decedent executed a durable power of attorney granting broad gifting powers to Breen but not authority to create an irrevocable trust.
- The guardianship decree authorized gifting and estate planning actions, including transferring assets to trusts and seeking medical assistance benefits for the decedent.
- The co-guardians transferred approximately $65,000 to the Arlene L. McDermott Real Estate Protector Trust during the decedent's life; DPW provided about $45,000 in medical assistance May 2010–January 2011.
- DPW contends the MA eligibility plan and resulting reimbursements implicate the state and thus require notice; the court ultimately denied the co-guards' preliminary objections and allowed discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does DPW have standing to challenge the estate gifting plan? | DPW was an interested party to MA-related relief. | Guardians argue DPW lacks standing to collaterally attack the decree. | DPW has standing; petition survives demurrer. |
| Was DPW entitled to notice, such that lack of notice would render the decree void or subject to collateral attack? | DPW was entitled to notice as an interested party. | Lack of notice would not affect jurisdiction or be grounds for attack. | Failure to notify DPW renders the order void for jurisdictional defects; objection fails. |
| Did the court have authority to approve gifting under §5536(b) and thus waive DPW’s position? | Section 5536(b) permits gifts to effect MA eligibility, with DPW as interested party. | Court may consider testamentary/inter vivos intentions, not ignore maintenance needs; DPW should be heard. | DPW could be heard; gifting provision valid but subject to notice and submission of evidence. |
| Is DPW collaterally attacking a final guardianship decree beyond the scope of §5536? | Estate-plan portion of petition falls within §5536; collateral attack is permissible as to MA provisions. | Decree regarding guardianship cannot be collaterally attacked. | Collaterally attack is permissible where MA-related dispositions are at stake; not barred. |
| Does DPW's petition plead a legally cognizable cause of action under §5536? | DPW seeks relief to enforce MA eligibility funding and appropriate transfers. | Guardians claim powers to gift under §5536; may lack proper record to resolve at demurrer. | Petition states a cognizable cause of action; not subject to dismissal on demurrer. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Alexander, 758 A.2d 182 (Pa. Super. 2000) (jurisdictional defects—failure to notify heir renders distribution decree void)
- Sullivan v. Chartwell Inv. Partners, LP, 873 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2005) (demurrer tests legal sufficiency; not to consider outside evidence)
- Bourke v. Kazaras, 746 A.2d 642 (Pa. Super. 2000) (demurrer standard: only clear, unquestionable claims sustain dismissal)
- Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Fabinyi, 650 A.2d 895 (Pa. Super. 1994) (consider pleadings alone in demurrer; no extrinsic evidence)
- Myers v. Ridge, 712 A.2d 791 (Pa. Commw. 1998) (pleadings and plausible inferences evaluated for demurrer)