In Re: Estate of Tito, R., Appeal of: Galinac, C.
150 A.3d 464
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Decedent Ralph F. Tito died in 2013 leaving a 2007 will that distributed his estate equally to his four children; he left nothing to long-term partner Carol J. Galinac.
- Galinac filed a multi-count "Claim Against Estate," alleging the children stole assets intended for her and that some of her personal property was not returned; she later amended to assert common-law spouse status and filed a statutory election under 20 Pa.C.S. § 2203.
- The Estate responded, invoking a cohabitation agreement, asserting a valid power of attorney for certain children, denying any intent to leave assets to Galinac, and counterclaiming for funds it says Galinac withdrew plus attorneys’ fees under the cohabitation agreement.
- The Estate moved for summary judgment arguing Galinac’s election was time-barred under 20 Pa.C.S. § 2210 and that many claims were improperly asserted against the Estate rather than individual children; the Orphans’ Court granted summary judgment dismissing the election and Galinac’s eleven claims.
- Galinac appealed; the Superior Court found the order immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(5) because it determined whether Galinac was a beneficiary or creditor and affirmed the Orphans’ Court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appealable despite pending counterclaim | Galinac: appeal not final under Pa.R.A.P. 341(c) because counterclaim unresolved | Estate: order is immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342 as it determines beneficiary/creditor status | Appealable under Rule 342; Superior Court exercised jurisdiction |
| Whether § 2210 statute of limitations bars Galinac’s election as common-law spouse | Galinac: tolling via fraudulent concealment and discovery rule because children told her she was only a girlfriend | Estate: election was untimely and no tolling applies | Statute not tolled; election time-barred |
| Whether Galinac can prove a common-law marriage | Galinac: she and Decedent entered common-law marriage (claimed 1992) | Estate: denies marriage; points to cohabitation agreement and other evidence negating spouse status | Court rejected tolling and found Galinac’s arguments inconsistent with proving an agreement; election barred on statute grounds (no merits finding of marriage) |
| Whether summary judgment on eleven claims was improper | Galinac: (bare assertions of owed funds and property) | Estate: claims improper against Estate and summary judgment appropriate | Galinac failed to develop appellate argument; claim waived; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 714 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 1998) (elements and burdens to prove common-law marriage)
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (discussing discovery rule and tolling of statutes of limitations)
- Molineux v. Reed, 532 A.2d 792 (Pa. 1987) (plaintiff’s burden to prove fraudulent concealment by clear, precise, and convincing evidence)
- Deemer v. Weaver, 187 A. 215 (Pa. 1936) (doctrine of fraudulent concealment and estoppel to invoke statute of limitations)
- McEwing v. Lititz Mut. Ins. Co., 77 A.3d 639 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to develop argument in appellate brief results in waiver)