In Re: Estate of Plance Appeal of: Plance, J.
175 A.3d 249
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Alfred Planee executed unrecorded 2004 deeds conveying his farm to land trusts naming himself trustee; he retained possession and did not record them. In 2006 he executed and recorded deeds conveying the farm to himself and his wife Joy as tenants by the entireties.
- In 2012 Alfred signed a will leaving the residue to son Timothy; the original will later disappeared (apparently burned) and Timothy petitioned to probate a photocopy. The Orphans’ Court admitted the photocopy on Aug. 27, 2013.
- Timothy obtained Letters Testamentary and later petitioned the Orphans’ Court, asserting Joy dissipated estate property; Joy responded, alleging Alfred revoked the will and claiming title to the farm under the recorded 2006 deeds.
- The Orphans’ Court (trial) found Alfred did not deliver the 2004 deeds, revoked its earlier probate order, held Alfred died intestate, and awarded superior title to Joy under the 2006 recorded deeds.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding (1) execution/acknowledgment created a presumption of delivery for the 2004 deeds (so title vested in the trusts) and (2) Joy was precluded by res judicata and collateral estoppel from contesting the validity of the probated photocopy of the will.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court: it upheld the Orphans’ Court factual finding of non-delivery (Joy has superior title) and held res judicata/collateral estoppel did not bar Joy’s challenge because the probate order was entered within the same estate-administration proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Timothy) | Defendant's Argument (Joy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the 2004 unrecorded deeds delivered (conveying title to trusts)? | Execution and acknowledgment raise a presumption of delivery; Alfred was both grantor and grantee so delivery occurred. | Alfred retained possession, never recorded, acted inconsistently (later executed 2006 deeds, leased and accepted proceeds with Joy); Orphans’ Court found no intent to deliver. | Orphans’ Court findings of non-delivery supported by competent evidence; Supreme Court affirms (2004 deeds not delivered; Joy holds title under 2006 deeds). |
| Who bore burden to prove delivery when grantor and grantee are same person and deed remained with him? | Presumption of delivery from acknowledgment; burden on Joy to rebut. | Under Leakey, possession by grantor casts burden on proponent; Joy met burden by evidence rebutting delivery. | Dual status (grantor/grantee) offsets possession presumptions; ordinarily challenger of delivery bears burden — Joy met that burden; court accepts her evidence. |
| Effect of recording statutes / bona fide purchaser status for Joy (2006 deeds recorded)? | If 2004 deeds were valid, Joy was not a BFP (paid nominal consideration) and thus not protected. | Joy argued she provided value (invested in stable) or natural affection; recorded 2006 deeds gave her superior title if 2004 deeds not delivered. | Moot after finding 2004 deeds not delivered; Orphans’ Court’s title ruling stands; Supreme Court declines to decide recording-statutory protection. |
| Whether res judicata or collateral estoppel barred Joy’s later challenge to validity of the photocopied will (after Orphans’ Court admitted it to probate)? | Probate admission was a separate, final, appealable order; Joy did not appeal so she is barred from relitigating revocation. | The probate order was entered in the same estate-administration proceedings (not a separate final judgment disposing the estate); Joy had not had a full opportunity to litigate and she timely raised revocation in new matter. | The probate order, although immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342, was entered within the ongoing estate-administration proceedings; the Court holds neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel precluded Joy’s later challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stiegelmann v. Ackman, 351 Pa. 592, 41 A.2d 679 (Pa. 1945) (delivery of a deed depends on grantor’s intent; delivery necessary to make deed operative)
- City Stores Co. v. Philadelphia, 376 Pa. 482, 103 A.2d 664 (Pa. 1954) (no particular form required to effect delivery; intent controls)
- Herr v. Bard, 355 Pa. 578, 50 A.2d 280 (Pa. 1947) (presumption that a deed executed and acknowledged was delivered on the day of acknowledgment)
- Leakey v. Leakey, 309 Pa. 347, 163 A. 677 (Pa. 1932) (unrecorded deed found in grantor’s possession shifts burden to proponent to prove delivery; courts must be cautious about presuming delivery solely from execution/acknowledgment)
- Leiser v. Hartel, 315 Pa. 537, 174 A. 106 (Pa. 1934) (possession by grantee after acknowledgment supports presumption of delivery)
- Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., 614 Pa. 335, 37 A.3d 1175 (Pa. 2012) (elements of res judicata)
- Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., 637 Pa. 163, 147 A.3d 490 (Pa. 2016) (elements of collateral estoppel)