194 A.3d 579
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Decedent Isabel Carrasquillo Rivera died intestate in May 2014, survived by husband Wilfredo Rivera (Appellant) and daughters Idaly Irizarry‑Zayas (Appellee, appointed administratrix) and Isolina Rivera Vargas.
- Appellee filed a first and final account (Nov. 28, 2016); Appellant objected (Jan. 23, 2017), challenging transfers of 24 properties from Decedent to Appellee shortly before Decedent’s death.
- At trial Appellant testified most properties were acquired during the marriage and he worked on them; he was present when deeds were executed but offered no documentary proof of joint title or dates of acquisition.
- Appellee introduced 24 deeds transferring property in April 2014; 23 deeds were in Decedent’s name only, one (3946 Horrocks St.) named both, and one Orkney Street property remained in Appellant’s name.
- Orphans’ Court granted nonsuit on real‑estate objections, found no evidence of incapacity, undue influence, or legal tenancy by the entireties, and denied remaining objections; Appellant appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rivera) | Defendant's Argument (Irizarry‑Zayas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether properties conveyed within one year of death without spouse’s "express consent" must be included in elective estate | Rivera: Transfers made in his presence without his objection do not constitute "express consent" under 20 Pa.C.S. §2203(b)(1); he seeks an elective share (one‑third) of those conveyances | Irizarry‑Zayas: Properties were conveyed inter vivos and did not pass through Decedent’s estate; no evidence of lack of consent at the time or of tenancy by entireties | Court: Rejected Rivera’s argument—spousal share governed by intestacy (§2102), not elective share; no proof of express joint title or consent issue affecting estate; affirmed exclusion of conveyed properties |
| Whether Orphans’ Court should exercise equitable powers to compensate spouse for his labor and "de facto" interest in properties | Rivera: Equitable relief should recognize his long contribution and allow recovery against value of properties (de facto tenancy by entireties) | Irizarry‑Zayas: No legal basis for de facto tenancy by entireties; equitable relief cannot supplant statutory property/title requirements without evidence | Court: Declined equitable relief; Pennsylvania does not recognize a "de facto tenancy by the entireties" absent legal unities and title; no legal or equitable right to spousal share of transferred realty |
| Whether Appellant presented sufficient evidence to overcome nonsuit on real‑estate objections | Rivera: His testimony about joint effort and presence at signings suffices | Irizarry‑Zayas: Appellant offered no deeds, acquisition documents, or evidence of title, timing, or incapacity | Court: Nonsuit proper—Appellant’s testimony was self‑serving and unsupported; no competent evidence of joint title or incapacity |
| Whether language or lack of understanding vitiates effect of deeds | Rivera: Language barrier and not reading documents undermined consent | Irizarry‑Zayas: No evidence language affected the inter vivos transfers; Appellant had an interpreter at trial | Court: Language issue did not create a legal excuse; signing without reading is negligence absent other proof; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Scarpaci, 176 A.3d 885 (Pa. Super. 2017) (distinguishes spousal share and elective share regimes)
- In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for Orphans’ Court factual findings)
- In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate review principles for Orphans’ Court)
- Silver v. Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284 (Pa. Super. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Constitution Bank v. Olson, 620 A.2d 1146 (Pa. Super. 1993) (tenancy by the entireties requires legal unities)
- Fenderson v. Fenderson, 685 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. 1996) (definition of the four unities for tenancy by the entireties)
- In re Estate of Karschner, 919 A.2d 252 (Pa. Super. 2007) (scope of review limited to competent and credible evidence)