In re Estate of Smaling
80 A.3d 485
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Decedent William O. Smaling died 12/31/2009; his 2005 will (admitted to probate) left $35,000 to his wife Norine and the residue to his two sons, William Jr. and Wayne.
- Norine sought to probate an after-discovered 10/29/2008 will leaving the entire estate to her; William contested on grounds of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity.
- The Orphans’ Court denied probate of the 2008 will, finding both lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence; Norine appealed.
- Procedural dispute: whether Norine waived weight-of-the-evidence claims by not filing exceptions under Pa.O.C.R. 7.1; the panel sua sponte held waiver, but the court granted en banc reargument.
- Record evidence included deposition testimony of the will scrivener (Atty. Khalil), treating physician (Dr. Wignarajan), testimony from the sons and brother‑in‑law, and a witness to the signing; the scrivener testified she confirmed the decedent’s assent on the execution date despite observing dementia symptoms earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Norine) | Defendant's Argument (William) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation/waiver of weight claims under Pa.O.C.R. 7.1 | Rule 7.1 does not mandate exceptions; weight claim preserved in timely Rule 1925(b) statement | Exceptions required to preserve post-trial weight claims; failure waives issue | Norine did not waive: Rule 7.1 + Widmer/Armbruster principles preserved weight claim where trial judge unavailable; appellate court may review in first instance |
| Standard of review / burden shifting on undue influence | Orphans’ Court cited correct burden‑shifting standard but failed to apply it | Court applied credibility findings and implicitly applied burden shifting | No abuse: court’s credibility findings meant Norine failed to rebut prima facie undue influence by clear and convincing evidence |
| Testamentary capacity (10/29/2008) | Scrivener’s direct observations at execution showed decedent knew his acts and beneficiaries; therefore had capacity | Treating physician and family testimony showed progressive dementia and inability to know estate; court found no capacity | Majority: Orphans’ Court abused discretion in disregarding scrivener’s contemporaneous testimony and thus erred to the extent it found lack of testamentary capacity; concurrence dissents |
| Undue influence / weight of evidence | Norine urged that court overweighted interested witnesses and underweighted disinterested testimony (witness Fort, scrivener) | William pointed to weakened intellect history, confidential relationship, and substantial benefit under 2008 will | Held: Sufficient competent evidence supported undue influence: (1) weakened intellect over time, (2) confidential relationship (Norine dominated healthcare, appointments, communications), and (3) substantial benefit (2008 will left entire estate to Norine). Orphans’ Court’s undue influence ruling affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (appellate review of weight claims is deferential to trial court discretion)
- Armbruster v. Horowitz, 813 A.2d 698 (Pa. 2002) (appellate court may review preserved weight claim in first instance if trial judge who heard evidence cannot rule)
- Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997) (weight claims may be preserved via Rule 1925(b) and reviewed if trial court actually addressed them)
- In re Estate of Clark, 334 A.2d 628 (Pa. 1975) (burden‑shifting framework and three‑part test for undue influence)
- Brantlinger Will, 210 A.2d 246 (Pa. 1965) (definition of testamentary capacity)
- Ziel, 359 A.2d 728 (Pa. 1976) (testamentary capacity assessed as of the date of execution)
- In re Estate of LeVin, 615 A.2d 38 (Pa. Super. 1992) (substantial benefit assessed case‑by‑case)
- In re Estate of Fritts, 906 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 2006) (weakened intellect often shown by persistent confusion and remote mental history can be probative for undue influence)
- Estate of Reichel, 400 A.2d 1268 (Pa. 1979) (appellate review in will contests limited to sufficiency and legal error)
- In re Cohen Will, 284 A.2d 754 (Pa. 1971) (formal execution proves will; shifts initial burdens)