In re Estate of Tyler, 80 A.3d 797

Background

Jessie M. Tyler executed a 2002 Will and a 2003 codicil (both admitted to probate); Attorney Allen Hench was the longtime scrivener.
On September 8, 2010 Hench met with Decedent, made handwritten changes on a photocopy of the 2002 Will altering specific bequests and the residuary clause, and Decedent signed next to most changes; Hench also wrote a note to his secretary: “do a codicil…”
Decedent died October 21, 2010; Hench submitted the 2002 Will, the 2003 codicil, and the September 8, 2010 document for probate; the Register of Wills denied probate of the September 8 document.
The orphans’ court found the September 8 document nontestamentary because it showed that a formal codicil was contemplated (scrivener’s note and use of a photocopy), thereby excluding extrinsic evidence of testamentary intent; it admitted the 2002 Will and 2003 codicil.
This Court (majority) reversed in part: held the orphans’ court erred as a matter of law in declaring the document nontestamentary, found the writing ambiguous, and remanded for hearings to determine testamentary intent; a dissent would have admitted the document to probate without further hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Sept. 8, 2010 handwritten document is testamentary (a valid codicil)	Henrys/Hench: signatures by Decedent next to changes and Hench’s witness signature show testamentary intent; writing should be admitted	Register/Orphans’ ct: the document was merely notes toward a future formal codicil (scrivener’s instruction and use of a copy), so nontestamentary	Majority: document ambiguous; orphans’ ct erred to declare it nontestamentary as a matter of law; remand for extrinsic-evidence hearings to determine intent
Whether extrinsic evidence of Decedent’s intent should be admitted	Henrys: extrinsic evidence unnecessary because signatures and form show intent	Register: extrinsic evidence precluded if document is nontestamentary	Held: because document is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence is admissible; remand to take such evidence
Whether signature placement (not literally at document end) invalidates the writing under §2502	Henrys: signature adjacent to each change is sufficient; statute does not invalidate when other words appear after signature	Register: placement and post-signature entries (and use of copy) weigh against testamentary character	Held: majority did not decide invalidity under statute; remanded because ambiguity about signature purpose and surrounding circumstances requires factfinding
Whether the orphans’ court relied improperly on scrivener’s plans over Decedent’s intent	Henrys: court focused on scrivener’s note and method (improper) rather than Decedent’s intent	Orphans’ ct: scrivener’s note evidenced that a further document was contemplated	Held: majority agrees court erred to exclude intent evidence based solely on scrivener’s note; factual development required on Decedent’s intent

Key Cases Cited

Estate of Shelly, 950 A.2d 1021 (Pa.Super.2008) (test for whether a writing is testamentary, and when extrinsic evidence is allowed)
In re Kauffman’s Estate, 76 A.2d 414 (Pa. 1950) (writing signed by decedent manifesting intent must be given effect as will or codicil)
In re Bosley, 26 A.3d 1104 (Pa.Super.2011) (standard of review in will contests and credibility determinations)
Estate of Reichel, 400 A.2d 1268 (Pa. 1979) (appellate scope of review of factual findings in will contests)
Estate of Masciantonio, 141 A.2d 362 (Pa. 1958) (presumption against setting aside trial court findings unless unsupported by evidence)
In re Moore’s Estate, 277 A.2d 825 (Pa. 1971) (extrinsic evidence inadmissible when paper clearly shows testamentary character)
In re Ritchie’s Estate, 389 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1978) (focus on whether writing was intended as the final testamentary instrument)
In re Logan, 413 A.2d 681 (Pa. 1980) (initial judicial inquiry whether a proffered paper shows testamentary intent as a matter of law)