In Re: Oerman, S., 873 MDA 2021

Decedent Steven R. Oerman died March 13, 2021; he was survived by three children; Jeremy D. Keller was his tenant.
Keller submitted a short signed document titled "Last Will and Testament of Steven R. Oerman," appointing Keller “in charge of my estate” and stating his decision would be "final in all matters of my estate," marked with two bloody fingerprints.
The Register of Wills admitted the document to probate and issued letters testamentary to Keller.
Two children (Brock and Kayla Oerman) petitioned the Orphans’ Court to revoke probate, arguing the writing was not a will and decedent died intestate.
The Orphans’ Court revoked admission and letters, holding the writing lacked any testamentary disposition of property and thus was not a will, and excluded extrinsic evidence as the document was not ambiguous.
Superior Court affirmed: the writing is non‑testamentary (no disposition), appointment alone does not create an effective will, and extrinsic evidence was properly precluded.

Issue	Keller's Argument	Children/Orphans' Court Argument	Held
Whether the signed writing titled "Last Will and Testament" constitutes a valid will	Title, signature, and naming Keller as executor show testamentary intent and suffice for probate	The instrument contains no dispositive language (no gifts, no beneficiaries, no property described); appointment alone is insufficient	Not a will — affirmed; instrument lacks testamentary disposition
Whether extrinsic evidence should be admitted to clarify the document	The title and phrases ("in charge of my estate," "decision final") are ambiguous; parol evidence should resolve meaning	The document is clear on its face as non‑testamentary; extrinsic evidence not admissible when writing is non‑testamentary	No extrinsic evidence — affirmed; instrument is unambiguous non‑testamentary

In re Estate of Tyler, 80 A.3d 797 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review and focus on testamentary intent from the instrument)
In re Kauffman's Estate, 76 A.2d 414 (Pa. 1950) (court must first determine testamentary intent from the paper before admitting extrinsic evidence)
In re Ritchie's Estate, 389 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1978) (informal instruments can be wills if language shows testamentary intent)
In re Sando's Estate, 66 A.2d 312 (Pa. 1949) (appointment of executor alone does not avoid an implied intestacy absent dispositive provisions)
In re Estate of Fleigle, 664 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. 1995) (an essential element of a will is a disposition of property)
In re Mannarelli's Estate, 259 A.2d 169 (Pa. 1969) (where writing clearly is non‑testamentary, evidence of testamentary intent is not admissible)