In Re: The Estate of Butz, K.
3161 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- Decedent Karl E. Butz died testate in 2011; his two adult children, Lorri Zimmerman (Appellant) and Jeffrey T. Butz (Participant), are sole beneficiaries. Both initially served as co-executors but resigned; an administrator was appointed.
- The estate includes a 64-acre unimproved family farm ("Farm") valued at $715,000 for inheritance tax purposes. The Farm was bequeathed to both beneficiaries as part of a general bequest.
- Participant petitioned to compel sale of the Farm; Appellant opposed, claiming a possible boundary dispute that could reduce acreage and sale value.
- The Orphans’ Court held hearings; Appellant offered testimony and an appraiser who testified a boundary dispute could depress value. The estate-commissioned, more recent survey was not entered into evidence.
- The court found the Farm non-contiguous and not fairly divisible, determined the parties could not cooperate in joint ownership, and concluded any title/boundary issue was not established on the record. The court ordered an absolute public auction without reserve within 60 days and required the administrator to clear title for sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in ordering immediate public sale of Farm | Zimmerman: sale by absolute auction without reserve will cause waste/dissipation because an unresolved boundary dispute would depress sale price; July 25, 2014 order required review of survey before sale | Butz/Administrator: no definitive evidence of a boundary dispute in the record; survey showing no dispute existed but was not introduced; sale process can resolve title issues | Court affirmed sale: no conclusive evidence of boundary dispute; property cannot be fairly divided; sale permitted under Probate Code §3534; auction appropriate and efficient |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by discrediting Appellant and appraiser testimony | Zimmerman: her testimony and appraiser (Fisher) established boundary dispute risk and diminished value | Butz: credibility and weight of evidence are matters for Orphans’ Court; no conclusive proof presented | Court: factual credibility determinations are for fact-finder; lack of competent evidence supporting a boundary encumbrance upheld |
| Whether trial court violated its July 25, 2014 order or Orphans’ Court rules by ordering absolute auction without reserve | Zimmerman: prior continuance required title search and survey results before ordering sale; Rule 12.9 compliance issue | Butz: no defect shown at trial; Appellant failed to introduce latest survey; Rule 12.9 objection waived by failure to raise below | Court: objection waived for failure to raise in lower court and Rule 1925(b); no reversible error |
| Whether property could be distributed in kind rather than sold | Zimmerman: seeks partial in-kind distribution to avoid depressed sale | Butz: property is non-contiguous and parties cannot cooperate; in-kind distribution would likely lead to partition and eventual sale | Court: property not divisible in kind fairly; sale avoids protracted partition litigation and is authorized under §3534 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Devoe, 74 A.3d 264 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review and deference to Orphans’ Court credibility findings)
- In re Ciuccarelli, 81 A.3d 953 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Orphans’ Court has exclusive jurisdiction over estate administration and distribution)
- McCullough’s Estate, 140 A. 865 (Pa. 1928) (fiduciary duty to secure fair value for estate assets)
- Estate of Bosico, 412 A.2d 505 (Pa. 1980) (fiduciaries must exercise utmost fairness with beneficiaries)
- In re Estate of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962 (Pa. Super. 2000) (issues not raised in lower court or in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived)