23 A.2d 235 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1941
Argued October 21, 1941. James R. Graham died testate on December 8, 1938 seized of real estate, then yielding an annual rental income of about $650. On May 2, 1941 appellant filed her petition in the orphans' court alleging that decedent at his death was indebted to her for board, lodging and for nursing service in the sum of $1,704.50, praying for an order on the executor under § 14 of the Fiduciaries Act of June 7, 1917, P.L. 447, 20 PS 503, directing him to collect the rents and, as personalty, to apply them to the payment of creditors. About one year before his death decedent had been adjudged mentally incompetent and a guardian was appointed in the common pleas. The final account of the guardian was filed after his death and, on confirmation on October 30, 1939, the guardian was discharged. Appellant had no notice of the filing of the guardian's account nor of his discharge and at no time asserted her claim in the court of *59 common pleas against the estate in the hands of the guardian.
A timely application under § 14 would not have been denied. Following decedent's death, the orphans' court had jurisdiction and the executor of the estate was the person to whom the claim should have been presented and not the guardian appointed by the court of common pleas. That the orphans' court then had exclusive jurisdiction is ruled by Frew's Estate,
Though decedent's personal estate was insufficient for the payment of his debts, appellant did not bring an action against the executor of the estate, as she might have done within one year from the date of death, under § 15 of the Fiduciaries Act, 20 PS 521, and thus, if prosecuted to judgment, extend her lien on decedent's real estate. She did not look to the real estate for payment of her claim until more than two years after the death and then under § 14 for an order on the executor to collect the rents for her benefit.
Before the passage of the Fiduciaries Act, rents accruing from real estate of a decedent passed to his heirs or devisees from the time of his death (Haslage v. Krugh,
It is therefore apparent that the approach to the solution of the problem in sections 14 and 15 was made in the light of its practical aspects. The omission of a specified time limit in § 14 is not evidence of an intention that a creditor may come in at any time but rather that he must act promptly after administration of the *61 estate begins. Any other construction would work an unnecessary hardship on the heir or devisee, a result to be avoided under the purpose declared by the Commission. They who inherit real estate should not be unduly harassed by the prospect of an application of a creditor on a claim not in judgment except within definite limits and it was the intention of the act that they should not be.
Sections 14 and 15 must be read together. The debt of a decedent not reduced to judgment remains a lien on his real estate for one year under § 15, and the orphans' court has jurisdiction over the real estate only during that period. The real estate in question, therefore, was a part of decedent's estate answerable for his debts, for one year only after his death. Without action by appellant during that period under § 14, to compel the application of the rents to satisfaction of her claim, the jurisdiction of the orphans' court over the real estate of decedent ended and, with it, her right to look to the land. cf. Conner's Estate,
In Reel's Estate, supra, relied upon by appellant, the petition was filed within one year after decedent's death although that fact was not referred to in the opinion. Shareff's Estate,
The decree dismissing the petition for a citation is affirmed. *62