In Re: Estate of Moskowitz, L.
115 A.3d 372
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Bernice Fein was Leonard Moskowitz’s longtime companion; Michael B. Fein is her son and acted as Moskowitz’s attorney-in-fact under a 2000 New Jersey POA.
- Decedent executed a last will (2007) naming Fein and Joshua Taylor as co-executors and establishing a trust for Fein.
- In 2009, Fein, via the POA, transferred Moskowitz’s assets (securities and a Philadelphia property) into joint or altered ownership, before Moskowitz’s death in 2009.
- After Moskowitz’s death, disputes over domicile and administration delayed probate; Taylor sought sole executor status in 2009, while Fein contested probate in New Jersey.
- The Orphans’ Court appointed Stephen Carroll as administrator in 2011; in 2012 the Estate sought an accounting and a constructive trust on the transferred assets; the court granted partial summary judgment in 2013 ordering asset transfers back to the Estate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Estate’s claim to recover transferred property is time-barred by the statute of limitations. | Estate contends equitable relief governs; laches not preserved; timely filing after administration started. | Fein argues a two-year limitations period applies and laches bars the claim. | Equitable action; statute of limitations frame only; laches not proven; judgment affirmed on this basis. |
| Whether Fein’s inter vivos transfers were valid gifts under the POA and PA/NJ law. | Estate asserts transfers were gifts beyond Fein’s authority; both Appellants acted outside POA. | Fein contends NJ POA allowed gifts and Pennsylvania law recognizes permissible cross-jurisdiction gifts. | Transfers were gifts outside authorized scope under PA law; invalid; constructively reclaimed assets to Estate. |
| Whether Fein’s retitling acts complied with the applicable POA statutes and impeded relief. | Estate relied on strict construction; gifts not authorized. | NJ/PA POA provisions permit certain gifts; broad discretion implied. | PA law controlled; gifts outside express authorization void; decision upheld. |
| Whether the denial of discovery to Fein in aid of petition to revoke letters of administration was proper. | Discovery necessary to challenge administrator. | Discovery sought was improper, not privileged, and not final orderable. | Discovery denial affirmed; not a final or collateral appealable order; quashed as to discovery. |
| Whether Carroll’s administration was neutral given shared counsel with former co-executor. | Fein argues lack of neutrality due to shared counsel. | Procedural rulings should be reviewed; neutrality presumed. | The issue was not addressed on appeal; court declined to decide on neutrality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Centre Concrete Co. v. AGI, Inc., 522 Pa. 27, 559 A.2d 516 (Pa. 1989) (statute frames for equity claims; laches considerations)
- Lipschutz v. Lipschutz, 571 A.2d 1046 (Pa. 1990) (equity uses statute as frame for laches analysis)
- Fulton v. Fulton, 106 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (laches requires prejudice; equitable relief not barred by time alone)
- In re Estate of Scharlach, 809 A.2d 376 (Pa. Super. 2002) (waiver of laches defense when not raised in pleadings)
- Hall v. Boyd, 6 Pa. 267 (Pa. 1847) (co-executors’ acts outside ordinary administration may require unanimity)
- Benezet v. Hess, 63 Pa. Super. 408 (Pa. 1915) (unanimity required for non-regular executor actions)
- In re Weidner, 595 Pa. 263, 938 A.2d 354 (Pa. 2007) (gifts authority under POA and broad vs limited powers)
- Metcalf v. Pesock, 885 A.2d 539 (Pa. Super. 2005) (102; gifts require express authorization under POA)
- In re Sipe’s Estate, 492 Pa. 125, 422 A.2d 826 (Pa. 1980) (donative elements for inter vivos gifts)
- Jennings v. Cutler, 672 A.2d 1219 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1996) (NJ law on gifts and donative intent)