In re Estate of Strahsmeier
54 A.3d 359
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- Decedent John J. Strahsmeier died 9/13/2008, survived by three children (Regan, Phillips, and Strahsmeier)
- Decedent executed a 6/6/2003 Will; ITF Account opened 2/13/2006 and revised 10/17/2006 to name Regan as ITF owner
- Binder (May 2007) directed estate funds be pooled and distributed equally; ITF to become major estate account
- Co-executors Regan and Phillips administered; Strahsmeier contested distributions and sought to enforce Will directives
- Treasury Bill H20 matured 10/16/2008 for $40,000 and proceeds deposited into ITF; Regan withdrew $140,200.26
- Orphans’ Court held ITF funds belonged to Estate or as per MPAA; May 12, 2011 hearing; July 1, 2011 memorandum/order and July 25, 2011 second memorandum/order dismissed Regan/Phillips’ exceptions; appeal filed 8/9/2011
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence shows intent contrary to Regan’s survivorship under the MPAA | Regan asserts no contrary intent; ITF is a Totten trust to Regan | Strahsmeier asserts evidence establishes contrary intent to Regan’s survivorship | Strahsmeier’s evidence supports contrary intent; Regan’s claim rejected |
| Whether the ITF Account was a convenience account rather than a Totten trust, affecting survivorship | Regan argues ITF is a Totten trust benefiting Regan | Strahsmeier contends ITF was a convenience account, estate assets go to Estate | Court affirmed contrary-intent finding, rejecting Regan’s characterization of ITF as survivorship asset |
| Whether the Treasury Bill H20 proceeds were Estate assets, not Regan’s | Regan contends proceeds belong to Regan as ITF beneficiary | Estate is rightful owner; funds deposited into ITF did not alter ownership | $40,000 Treasury Bill proceeds belonged to the Estate and were to be returned |
| Whether the MPAA governs the distribution despite other evidence, including decedent’s binder and lawyer’s testimony | Regan relies on MPAA presumption for survivorship | Court may override presumption with clear and convincing contrary intent | Court overridden MPAA presumption based on multiple record facts; Estate assets disposition favored |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Novosielski Estate, 605 Pa. 508 (Pa. 2010) (contrary to bare will-based distribution; plain MPAA reading controls)
- In re Estate of Cella, 12 A.3d 374 (Pa. Super. 2010) (application of MPAA; standards for clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Rodger’s Estate, 374 Pa. 246 (Pa. 1953) (Totten trust concept defining survivorship expectations)
- In re Smith, 890 A.2d 1082 (Pa. Super. 2006) (deference to orphans’ court factual findings; standard of review)
- Commonwealth v. Pickron, 535 Pa. 241 (Pa. 1993) (legal sufficiency and factual-foundation standards on estate issues)