McGaffic, R. v. Love, D.
McGaffic, R. v. Love, D. No. 1782 WDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Jul 26, 2017Background
- Eleanor, George, and Anita Love owned the Centennial Building as tenants in common and operated it through an oral partnership; the building was effectively condemned and later taken by RANC.
- Anita died in 1973; her one-third was sold to McGaffic in 1976. Eleanor died in 1975; her one-third remained in her unsettled estate. George died in 2001 domiciled in North Carolina; his one-third passed by will to Dorothy Love, who became executrix.
- McGaffic submitted a written claim against George’s estate on June 30, 2001, seeking reimbursement of partnership expenses; North Carolina counsel for the estate rejected the unquantified claim on July 23, 2001.
- North Carolina law required a claimant to commence an action or file a petition within 90 days of rejection; McGaffic did not take further action in NC within that period and the estate administration was completed and the executrix discharged.
- On January 4, 2002, McGaffic sued in Pennsylvania state court seeking dissolution and accounting against Dorothy Love as executrix. Love filed preliminary objections asserting lack of subject-matter and in personam jurisdiction (among other defenses).
- The trial court sustained preliminary objections for lack of both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the NC probate proceedings (in rem jurisdiction of the res) precluded Pennsylvania courts from entertaining the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pennsylvania court has subject-matter jurisdiction over McGaffic’s claim against George’s estate | McGaffic: claim timely under Pennsylvania statutes of limitations; Pennsylvania courts can hear the partnership/accounting claim | Love: NC probate law governs claims against decedent’s estate; claimant failed to pursue required NC probate remedies and the estate administration was closed | Held: No subject-matter jurisdiction. NC probate court’s in rem jurisdiction over the res and closed administration bars PA adjudication |
| Whether Pennsylvania courts have in personam jurisdiction over the executrix | McGaffic: service by certified copy of complaint subjects executrix to PA jurisdiction | Love: executrix was discharged in NC and the estate no longer exists as a litigable entity in PA; jurisdiction lacking | Held: Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction (both subject-matter and personal); because subject-matter jurisdiction lacked, service issue not reached further |
Key Cases Cited
- Feingold v. Hendrzak, 15 A.3d 937 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for preliminary objections)
- Haun v. Community Health Systems, Inc., 14 A.3d 120 (Pa. Super. 2011) (same)
- In re Craig’s Estate, 109 A.2d 190 (Pa. 1954) (estate administration is an in rem proceeding)
- Thompson v. Fitzgerald, 198 A. 58 (Pa. 1938) (possession of the res by the first court gives that court exclusive jurisdiction over the res)
- Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson, 305 U.S. 456 (1939) (affirming the exclusivity of the forum in rem principle)
- Merritt v. American Steel-Barge Co., 79 F. 228 (8th Cir. 1897) (possession of the res vests jurisdiction to determine controversies relating to it)