In Re Estate of Miller
18 A.3d 1163
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Daniel L.R. Miller died June 16, 2006; his Last Will was probated and Elizabeth M. Miller and Daniel M. Miller were appointed co-executors.
- Miller was a trustee of the Jura Trust and an officer/director of Jura Corporation; he also served on the LORD and Basis boards, with confidential records in his possession at death.
- After Miller’s death, the Co-Executor gathered his father's records and delivered some to Jura Trust and Jura Corporation, but disputes arose over undisclosed records in the Estate's possession.
- Jura Trust and Jura Corporation filed petitions for rule to show cause; the trial court ordered return of records and awarded costs against the Estate for prior delays.
- The court held preliminary that the Estate’s conduct justified sanctions, but the sanctions were later vacated on appeal after considering individual conduct of the Co-Executor.
- On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court en banc affirmed some rulings and vacated sanctions, addressing standing, jurisdiction, jury demand, confidentiality duties, and sanctions under 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(7).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction and standing of Jura entities | Jura entities had standing and jurisdiction under 20 Pa.C.S. § 711(1),(3). | Co-Executor challenged standing and jurisdiction, arguing lack of proper citation and lack of jurisdiction over estate. | Orphans' Court had jurisdiction; Jura Corporation and Jura Trust had standing. |
| Right to a jury trial in Orphans' Court | Co-Executor timely demanded a jury trial but procedures were met. | Demand violated § 777(d) timing requirements and thus was waived. | Waiver proper; no right to jury trial for this matter. |
| Deposition corrections | Corrections should stand as part of the record. | Corrections substantively altered the statement and lacked reasons per Rule 4017(c). | Issue waived for lack of record; deposition corrections not preserved. |
| Duty of confidentiality vs disclosure of value to interested parties | Co-Executor owed confidentiality to Jura Trust and Jura Corporation; value disclosure to interested parties may be required. | Public Charities had no direct beneficiary status; the duty was owed to Lord Foundations, not Public Charities. | Co-Executor owed confidentiality to Jura Trust/Jura Corporation; no duty to Public Charities; confidentiality prioritized. |
| Sanctions under 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(7) | Estate’s delay and mismanagement warranted sanctions for dilatory conduct prior to petitions. | Sanctions should target the Co-Executor individually, not the Estate as a whole. | Sanctions reversed as to Estate; analyzed improperly as to Co-Executor individually. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ware, 814 A.2d 725, 814 A.2d 725 (Pa.Super.2002) (deference to Orphans' Court findings; standard of review for appellate reversal)
- In re Schwoyer's Estate, 288 Pa. 541, 288 Pa. 541 (1927) (trial court discretion to grant jury trial in probate matters)
- Fesmyer v. Shannon, 143 Pa. 201, 143 Pa. 201 (1891) (executor authority is joint and several)
- Bombar v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 932 A.2d 78, 932 A.2d 78 (Pa.Super.2007) (court will not create new rule of law unsupported by authority)
- In re Estate of Westin, 874 A.2d 139, 874 A.2d 139 (Pa.Super.2005) (standard for surcharge against fiduciary)