In the Matter of Estate of Lydia F. Shearlds
494 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Lydia F. Shearlds died testate April 4, 2015; a will dated April 1, 2015 was admitted to probate and Maria S. Slocum was appointed executrix.
- The will devised the residuary estate equally to Lydia’s three surviving sons and Michelle Shearlds, identified in the will as Lydia’s child though never legally adopted.
- Appellant Deree J. Norman (a son) filed an August 1, 2016 petition seeking removal of Slocum as executrix and invalidation of the will, alleging Slocum altered the will (inserting her name as executrix in place of Appellant) and that Michelle was improperly described as a child.
- The orphans’ court removed Slocum as executrix but sua sponte denied relief invalidating the will as an untimely appeal from probate under 20 Pa.C.S. § 908(a).
- On appeal, Norman challenged (1) the court’s treatment of Slocum’s alleged alteration and coercive conduct; (2) the court’s reliance on the statute-of-limitations defense raised sua sponte; and (3) urged the court should have invalidated the will (arguing undue influence).
- The Superior Court affirmed: it held the trial court erred in raising the timeliness defense sua sponte, but Norman waived undue-influence and related challenges by failing to raise them below and by failing to develop legal arguments or cite authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Should the will be invalidated because Slocum altered it (inserted her name as executor)? | Norman: Slocum unlawfully altered the will by inserting her name for his and this invalidates the will. | Orphans’ court: petition to invalidate the will was untimely (raised sua sponte); Slocum’s alteration does not establish undue influence. | Court affirmed probate; trial court should not have raised timeliness sua sponte, but Norman waived undue-influence claim and failed to show alteration met undue-influence elements. |
| 2. Did Slocum coerce Lydia (undue influence) while Lydia was hospitalized, invalidating the will? | Norman: Slocum’s coercive/manipulative conduct procured the will. | Orphans’ court/Slocum: undue influence not pled or proven; elements not established. | Waived: Norman did not plead undue influence below and failed to develop argument or cite authority; thus claim forfeited. |
| 3. Was it improper for the court to assert a statute-of-limitations defense sua sponte? | Norman: Trial court improperly raised the time-bar as an affirmative defense that should have been pleaded by a party. | Orphans’ court: relied on § 908(a) to deny the petition as an untimely challenge to probate. | Court: Trial court erred in raising the timeliness defense sua sponte (statute-of-limitations can be waived and should be raised by a party). |
| 4. Did the trial court fail to apply alternative legal provisions that would grant petition in full? | Norman: Court failed to consider provisions that would entitle him to relief. | Orphans’ court: relief not warranted because claims were not properly before the court and undue influence was unsupported. | Court: No relief — substantive challenges waived or unsupported; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Fiedler, 132 A.3d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for Orphans' Court factual findings and legal conclusions)
- Dash v. Wilap Corp., 495 A.2d 950 (Pa. Super. 1985) (statute-of-limitations defenses can be waived and should not be raised sua sponte by the trial court)
- In re Estate of Smaling, 80 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. 2013) (elements and burden for establishing undue influence to invalidate a will)
- In re Ziel's Estate, 59 A.2d 728 (Pa. 1948) (undue-influence principles cited in Smaling)
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate arguments not developed or unsupported by authority may be considered waived)