In Re: Estate of Scarpaci, T. Appeal of Scarpaci
176 A.3d 885
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Decedent died intestate on October 9, 2013, survived by his wife (Wife), two adult children from a prior marriage, and two minor children with Wife. Wife and Decedent were separated and in divorce proceedings at death.
- Wife initiated divorce (2008) and earlier sought a PFA (2005) but later withdrew it; family court ordered Decedent to vacate the marital residence in 2009. No final divorce decree was entered before Decedent’s death.
- Wife obtained letters of administration and filed inheritance tax paperwork and notice naming beneficiaries; she did not file a formal petition for adjudication but attempted informal distributions and communications with heirs.
- Appellees (Decedent’s adult children) objected orally at the account audit to Wife’s claim to a spousal/intestate share; the Orphans’ Court resolved the matter on briefs without a hearing.
- The Orphans’ Court denied and struck Wife’s claim to a spousal share, reasoning (1) she failed to timely elect under elective-share procedures and (2) she forfeited her intestate share under 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 2106 (both the divorce-ground subsection and the non-support subsection).
- The Superior Court reviewed de novo legal questions and reversed, finding legal and procedural error in the Orphans’ Court’s rulings and lack of evidentiary support for forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a timely election under Chapter 22 was required to claim a spousal (intestate) share | Scarpaci: No election required; spousal share under §2102 is automatic and not governed by elective-share time limits | Appellees/Orphans’ Ct: Wife failed to timely elect under §2210, so claim barred | Court: Reversed — elective-share rules (Chapter 22) do not apply to intestate spousal share under §2102 |
| Whether Wife forfeited her spousal share under §2106(a)(2) (divorce proceedings grounds) | Scarpaci: Grounds for forfeiture not established because prerequisites of §3323(g) were not met (no affidavit of consent filed) | Appellees: Divorce pending at death supports forfeiture under §2106(a)(2) | Court: Reversed — §3323(g) grounds not established; subsection (a)(2) does not apply here |
| Whether Wife forfeited her spousal share under §2106(a)(1) (willful non-support/desertion) | Scarpaci: No evidentiary basis; court made findings without hearing or proof; forfeitures disfavored and burden on challengers | Appellees: Wife did not support Decedent after separation and thus forfeited share | Court: Reversed — no hearing or record evidence to prove willful neglect/non-support; legal error to find forfeiture on briefs alone |
| Whether court could decide forfeiture as a matter of law on briefs without evidentiary hearing | Scarpaci: Orphans’ Court needed to create a record and hold a hearing before making factual findings on forfeiture | Appellees: (Implicit) briefs suffice to resolve undisputed facts | Court: Reversed — trial court erred by deciding contested factual issues without evidentiary hearing; forfeiture not proven |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Fiedler, 132 A.3d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for Orphans’ Court decisions)
- In re Nixon’s Estate, 159 A. 172 (Pa. Super. 1932) (where non-support is proven, desertion need not be shown for forfeiture)
- In re Wallace's Estate, 263 A.2d 421 (Pa. 1970) (burden of proving forfeiture rests on party claiming it; forfeitures strictly construed)
- Tecce v. Hally, 106 A.3d 728 (Pa. Super. 2014) (findings of fact require evidentiary basis)
- In re Lodge's Estate, 134 A. 472 (Pa. 1926) (withdrawal from marital residence for reasonable cause or separation by consent does not constitute desertion)