*1 сharac- ¶25 The trial court is flawed. conduct Lastly, the Commonwealth following manner: in the in the issue court erred defer terized alleges that the trial request that Santiago’s ring ruling on its decide whether This court cannot into evidence the of to introduce he be able present evidence is entitled defendant withholding of deliberate Commonwealth’s excul- that the Commonwealth withheld opinion states The trial court evidence. con- intent to evidence with the patory ripe appellate order is not a full and on less than vict the defendant There is no order agree. We review. the Com- factual until complete basis or the other way this issue one deciding presented. has been monwealth’s ease fact, to review. that we are able 2/19/02, at 15. Opinion, Trial Court in the Common could rule trial court ¶ notes, majority prior our 3 As the Presenting this issue wealth’s favor. that the failure explicitly held opinion by attempt simply is a back-door appeal not at issue did turn over the statements have this Court rule the Commonwealth We further Brady violation. constitute trial yet decided on an issue not wrongful no conduct that there was held Thus, merit- patently court.14 this issue There- part on the Commonwealth. less. fore, argue cannot appellant simply ¶ re- the trial court is 26 The order of exculpatory withheld the Commonwealth part. part and affirmed versed evidence. jurisdiction is relin- is remanded and case quished.
¶ BECK, J., Concurring files
Statement. STERNLICHT, Appellee, Harold C. BY
CONCURRING STATEMENT BECK, J.: v. join all majority agree I STERNLICHT, Lauri Davidson I opinion. would its well-reasoned
parts of Appellant. however, ap- add, regarding that the issue Pennsylvania. Superior Court of that the evidence request to offer pellant’s evi- exculpatory withheld Commonwealth 22, 2002. Argued Oct. appears to be moot. dence Filed March reso- First, majority’s light 21, 2003. May Denied Reargument case, analysis its specifically lution of this 804(b)(6), is not the evidence under Rule Second, pre- premise
admissible. evidence of the Commonwealth’s
senting
material,
logic
the Commonwealth’s
dictates of
exculpatory, we
or
favorable
court.
obligation
without merit.
act as an officer
argument to be
find this
example of the abuse of
yet another
This is
Commonwealth,
Moreover,
in order to
Dugger, 506 Pa.
the Commonwealth
interlocutory appeal
to take an
be allowed
(1985)
given the
rule that has
Joanne lant. Cappella, Pittsburgh,
Kerri L. for appel- lee. MUSMANNO, LALLY-
Before: GREEN, KLEIN, JJ. LALLY-GREEN, J.: ¶ Appellant, Lauri Davidson Sternlicht (“Mother”), the order appeals from dated 24, 2001, August denying Mother’s Petition Accounting for and Petition Removal of denying Mother counsel Custodian in part, part, We reverse in affirm fees. and remand. following 2 The trial court found the
facts:
Defendant, Davidson Sternlicht Lauri (“Mother”), appeals this Court’s Order denying certain August dated Accounting her aspects of Petition Plaintiff, credibly Father testified at trial and Petition for Removal of in the stock (“Father”), purpose making his sole Harold C. Sternlicht as Cus- purchases between October 1997 parties todian and for Other Relief. The in December 1998 his name as custodi- the natural minor- parents are of one an, tax upon to lessen the burden child, Sternlicht, K. Septem- Jamie born capital gains expected himself for They separated ber March fact, when he sold those stocks. May and divorced in there were evidence established 20, 2001, August hearing On we held $16,000 in excess of real- capital gains petition. regard on Mother’s With 1999, and were then during ized these appeal only, testimony the issues on filings on tax he made on be- identified and evidence established that March half of the minor-child. 1997, an Ameritrade *4 relief, In addition to other which we Father, name of Custodian For The granted, sought Mother removal Fa- Sternlicht, Benefit of Jamie K. UGMA custodian, ther and that he as restore PA, approxi- existed with a balance $59,759 the he had removed from the $4,600. mately Between October 1997 during year the and December a Father made ser- 24, 2001, By August Order dated we purchases of stock ac- through ies relief, granted Mother certain but with $46,500.1 totaling count The funds to account, reference to the custodial we purchase by the stocks were generated requested. appeal denied the relief This through Father post-separation earnings followed. $20,000 and a inheritance he received 3/6/02, Opinion, Trial at 1-2. Court from uncle. During his the calendar 23, 2001, January a most, 3 On Mother filed year Father if all of sold Accounting requesting Petition for the stock he had purchased between Oc- produce Father records of all transactions tober 1997 and December 1998. He relating to a custodial account Father es- pay private used the funds to the school daughter Pennsyl- the tablished for under expenses tuition of the minor-child and Act vania Uniform Transfers to Minors purchase to a home for himself. While (PUTMA), §§ Fa- 20 Pa.C.S.A. 5301-10.2 Mother suggested hearing that Fa- produced ther some documents but did not used the ther funds from the sale of the produce any demonstrating records his use payments stock to make to her of cer- custodial funds. obligations tain he incurrеd as the result ¶4 of our decision on the economic claims of April On Mother filed parties, there was no evidence to for Removal of and Petition Custodian 24, 2001, support July the claim. Mother Other Relief.3 On (1) accounting by 1. Our review of the reflects that an the custodian or the record $36,500.00 approximate was the total legal representative; in custodian’s ... $10,000.00, purchases account for stock (d) removed.— Court order when custodian $20,000.00, $6,500.00. N.T., 8/20/01, at under Section If custodian is removed 44-47. cause), 5318(f) (relating for to removal accounting... require the court shall provides ac- 2. Section 5319 of PUTMA § 20 Pa.C.S.A. counting liability of the and determination of states, pertinent part: custodian and in provides for remov- 3.Section 5318 of PUTMA (a) adult the mi- [A]n member of Petition.— of the custodian for cause and states al family... may petition the court nor’s pertinent part: for: if, rеaching a judgment; Au- con- On error of a Petition Enforcement.4 filed clusion, or 20, 2001, hearing misap- trial the court overrides gust court held law, judgment or exercised petitions. plies on Father testified Mother’s record to either within PUT- is shown daughter’s to transactions manifestly product or the August unreasonable hearing. MA account at the On will, ill bias or 24, 2001, partiality, prejudice, an order the trial court entered addition, has been abused. Mother’s for Removal discretion denying Petition duty support to one’s appeal we note and Other Relief. This Custodian absolute, purpose child is followed. support the child’s promote child is to appeal: 5 Mother raises two issues interests. best 1) failing trial court Did the err (Pa.Su- Laws, 1226, 1228 Laws v. he re- require repay Father to amounts (citations omitted). per.2000) ac- daughter’s moved from custodial count? ¶ 7 first that the trial complains Mоther 2) failing trial Did the court err [in] in failing require erred Father to court legal Father Mother’s require pay funds that Father removed repay from incurred in with her expenses connection daughter’s PUTMA account. Mother com- Petition Accounting Petition that all of the plains *5 for for Other Removal Custodian and daughter’s into PUTMA con- put of for daughter an gift stituted irrevocable Relief? The repaid, interest. trial should be involve Brief at These issues Mother’s intended to court held Father never arose support daughter parties’ daughter the funds to when used equitable during parties’ the course of the depository account as a for the PUTMA be- dispute pending that was distribution stock investments. trial court. fore the ¶ is well set- 6 Our standard of review will first 8 We address Mother’s issue tled. funds in concerning Father’s use of the order, evaluating parts. account in two We ad- support PUTMA
When
1)
Father
only
depos-
trial court’s
whether the funds
reverse the
dress:
Court
cannot
into the PUTMA account constitute
where the order
ited
determination
2)
any
property
daughter;
on
We
of the
and whether
ground.
sustained
valid
use of a
of the funds for
portion
not interfere with the broad discre- Father’s
will
expenditures,
payment
separate
an
two
down
tion afforded the trial court absent
daughter’s
payment
insufficient
a house
of that discretion or
on
abuse
tuition,
proper
order.
school
were
PUT-
support
private
to sustain the
evidence
analysis
an
A
merely
expenditures.
proper
MA
An abuse of discretion is
We, thus,
transferor,
(£)
appeal.
treat the
on
issue
for
that issue
Removal
cause.—A
transferor,
of Father’s removal as abandoned.
legal representative
an adult
of a
family, guardian of
the minor’s
member of
4. Mother's Petition for
con-
Enforcement
minor,
guardian of the
person of the
equitable
transfer
and other
cerned
of stock
at-
the minor
the minor has
minor or
if
appeal
before us.
distribution matters not
age may
years
petition
the court
tained 14
did, however,
petition
request attorney
the custodian
cause...
to remove
request
fees
Mother.
fees for
This
added).
(emphasis
§
Pa.C.S.A.
August
2001 order
denied in
same
sought
originally
removal of Father
Mother
appeal.
presently before
is an issue on
us and
argue
See,
Record,
the account but does not
custodian of
Original
No. 77.
Docket
requires
these issues
application of several
credit to an account in the name of the
sections PUTMA.
transferor, an adult
than the
other
transferor or a
company,
trust
fol-
¶ 9 We first address the issue of
lowed
substance
the words: “as
whether the funds that
deposited
(name minor)
custodian for
under
into the PUTMA account
prop
constitute
Pennsylvania
Uniform Transfers
erty
daughter.
language
When the
Act.”
to Minors
of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it is
disregarded
not to be
pretext
under the
plain meaning
5309. The
pursuing
spirit
of the statute. 1 Pa.
5309(a)(2)
of Section
that a
indicates
trans-
1921(b);
McKelvey
C.S.A.
v. McKelvey,
fer is made
property”
and “custodial
is
64 (Pa.Super.2001). Only
deposited
created when
is
into a
when the language
ambig
of the statute is
brokerage account in
par-
the name of the
uous does statutory construction become
ent as custodian for the minor under PUT-
necessary. Ramich v.
Comp.
Worker’s
MA.
(Schatz Electric, Inc.),
Appeal Board
12 Section
which addresses the
(2001).
Pa.656,
¶ 10 The purpose of PUTMA is pertinent part: to provide inexpensive, easy way for (b) Irrevocability of transfer. -A trans- giving property to minors. v. Sut Sutliff pursuant fer made to section 5309 is liff, 515 Pa. irrevocable, and the custodial (1987). Section 5304 of PUTMA addresses minor, indefeasibly vested but the irrevocable nature of transfers rights, powers, the custodian has all the PUTMA accounts and provides: *6 duties in authority provided and this person A may by make transfer chapter, and neither the minor nor the to, gift irrevocable or the irrevocable legal minor’s representative any has exercise of a power of in appointment right, power, duty authority or with re- of, favor a custodian for the benefit aof spect to the property except custodial as pursuant minor to section 5309 (relating in provided chapter. this to manner of creating property custodial transfer). and effecting 5311(b). § plain The mean- source, § 20 Pa.C.S.A. 5304. Whatever its 5311(b) ing of Section is that a transfer property custodial pursuant that is held to mаde into the account mi- PUTMA of the Section 5304 is the property of the minor vesting nor is irrevocable and the of the Sutliff, child. property custodial in minor cannot be undone. 11 Section which addresses the creating manner of property custodial and reflects, 13 As the above the relevant transfer, effecting provides in relevant provisions unambiguous PUTMA are on part: therefore, face they, their and must be (a) Creation of custodial property.— given plain effect accordance with their Custodial property is created and a meaning. plain and common is transfer made whenever: (cid:127) meaning provi- common of the relevant money of
sions PUTMA is
transferred
(2) Money
brokerage
into a custodial
account is irre-
paid
is
or delivered to a
broker or
financial
institution for vocably
property
of the minor child.
5311(b).5
eаrly
February
§§
as
as
count
20 Pa.C.S.A.
supports that he used
evidence
these
¶ 14 The
court determined
trial
school tu-
pay
private
funds to
Jamie’s
the PUTMA
that the transfer
Father to
Community Center
ition at the Jewish
of
did not
create
he was otherwise un-
Pittsburgh, though
trial court addressed
issue
child. The
addition,
In
obligation
do so.
der no
to
as follows:
a home for
purchase
funds were used to
reaching
August
our
decision
words,
that,
he
Father so
in his
could
certainly
were
aware of the
we
custody
enjoy
periods
partial
his
irrevocability
to
gifts
made
minors
resi-
daughter
appropriate
his
Pennsylvania
Gifts
under the
Uniform
dence,
proper-
rather
in the rental
than
Act,
gift
con-
Minors
that such
in since
ty/duplex
living
had been
indefeasibly
veyed to the minor
vested
separation.
time
property giv-
to the
legal title
custodial
to his
openly
igno-
Father
admitted
5311(b).
Nonethe-
en. 20 Pa.C.S.A.
Pennsylva-
provisions
rance of the
of the
less,
a dif-
equity
we believed
demanded
Act, and it
nia Uniform Gift to Minors
very
In a
real
ferent result
this case.
testimony
from his
that he was
clear
sense,
any
there never
donative in-
was
merely
in the cus-
“parking” these funds
part
gift
these
tent on
of Father
purpose
account for the sole
todial
daughter.
to his
He was not ear-
funds
capital
reducing his tax burden on
marking
a sum of
for her future
he would
when the stocks
gains
realize
for education or otherwise. He
benefit
making the pur-
were sold. Father was
buying
through
and selling
was
stocks
through
chases on the Internet
Ameri-
opened
had
an Ameritrade account he
moving
the monies
trade.
purpose
limiting
for her with the sole
account and
through
Ameritrade
liability
gains.
his tax
on the
We know
irrevocability
aware
was not
proceedings involving
from further
these
credible on
gift.
We found Father
not in а financial
parties
Father was
these issues.
a sum
position
irrevocably
commit
$46,500
needs of
large as
the future
explains
20 Pa.C.S.A.
how
daughter,
present
his
when
financial
his
under the
person
make a
Uni-
so
*7
needs were
substantial.
Clearly
to
Act.
form Gifts Minors
made
began
gift
pur-
becomes
once
The tax return
that
irrevocable
verifies
5311(b).
How-
of the ac-
to
withdrawing
funds out
suant
Id. at 1202. In Perl-
previously
that
benefit of the children.
5. We observe
this Court has
berger,
Court
Section 5305 of
to a child
construed
determined
assets transferred
pursuant
Pennsylvania
and
trans-
by parent
a
Uni-
PUGMA
concluded
to the
(PUGMA),
by the
prede-
under PUGMAis owned
minor
to Minors
ferred
form Gifts
Act
PUTMA,
and
belong
as
who becomes vested with full
indefeasible
to
to the child
cessor
property is to be used for
completed gift
vest the
title and that such
and
child
result of
thus,
We,
See, Perlberger
vacated the
the benefit of
child.
title.
with full
indefeasible
245,
requiring
court’s order
reimbursement
Perlberger,
Pa.Super.
626 A.2d
trial
denied,
628,
(1993),
hearing
whether
on
536 Pa.
and remanded for a
appeal
(1993).
proper.
Perlberger
of PUGMA funds was
Former
involved a
use
pow-
relating to the duties and
Section
support action in which Mother
PUGMA
used
custodians,
we construed in Perl-
pay
expenses. Mother
ers of
which
to
for certain
funds
repealed
ordering
berger,
December
her
was
1992.
alleged the trial
erred in
to
court
analysis
repeal does
our
we
PUGMA
not affect
to the children’s
ac-
This
restore
relevance,
Perlberger
precedence.
for the
cite
count because the funds were used
ever,
deposited
in-
Father
an
ruary/March
we believe that Father never
$20,000.00
[gift]
tended to make an irrevocable
account for
additional
into the
daughter.
supra,
his
As discussed
Fa-
of stock. Id. at
purchase
ignorant
total,
ther was
of the nature of his
deposited
Father
over
1318.
gift
daughter
and that it was irrevoca-
$36,500.00 into the PUTMA account from
ble.
through
March of 1997
December of 1998.
at
In the case sub Father’s name $59,759.00,representing stock totaled was listed as custodian on the account. purchased cost basis of the stock Father believed he was the owner of the See, $16,616.00 Return, gains. Tax account, at a or minimum that he was a Pa Schedule D. joint owner on the account as he could ¶ 18 The trial court found that Father exercise control over the monies deposit- $36,500.00 gift never intended to into ed into the account. Also he did not the PUTMA account from March of 1997 intend for monies to given to his through Trial December Court Therefore, daughter. no valid 3/6/02, Opinion, at 4. The trial court con- made. ignorant cluded Father was of the law (cita- 3/6/02, Trial Opinion, Court at 2-5 and used the PUTMA account to reduce omitted).
tions liability by attributing his income tax daughter. funds to Id.
¶ 15 Our review of the record reflects that Father established an in- Ameritrade disagree 19 We are constrained to vestment account under PUTMA on behalf Here, the learned trial court. Father es- N.T., 8/20/01, daughter. at 42-48. Fa- ac- tablished Ameritrade investment ther testified that the balance PUT- 5309(a)(2) count under Section of PUTMA. $5,667.05 MA account of in March of 1997 *8 daughter. on behalf of his The funds de- gifted was intended to be to daughter. his posited prop- into this account became the N.T., 8/20/01, at 42-44. erty daughter. of his 20 Pa.C.S.A. 5311(b); 5304, 5309,
¶
§§
Father’s
July
16 In
deposited
of
Father
Sutliff.
consequences by
intention to avoid tax
de-
$10,000.00
pur-
into the account for the
positing the funds into
ac-
the PUTMA
chase of stock.
Id. at
6. We of the law is also note Liquor (Ap- License Case deposited excuse. Clem’s into a PUTMA be- Café *9 Pa.94, peal 227 493 Dapra), 425 A.2d comes of the minor does not excuse of (1967) things (ignorance of the fact con- of comply with to PUTMA. Father’s failure by will its templated the statute not excuse
741
¶25
thus,
We now address Father’s
remand for
determination
portion
present ability
of a
account to trial court
to Father’s
to
use
of the PUTMA
528
daughter’s private
support obligation. Sutliff,
school
tuition.
fulfill this
pay
Again,
expenditure
an
under Section 5814 A.2d
1324.7
to,
in
in
addition
and not
substitution
¶28
complains
Mother next
for, any parental support obligation. 20
failing
to re
that the trial court erred
5314;
§
Pa.C.S.A.
A custodian
Sutliff.
legal ex
quire
рay
to
Mother’s
improperly
abuses his discretion and acts
penses incurred in connection with her
if
expends
he
funds from a PUTMA ac
Accounting
Petition for
and Petition for
for
purpose
fulfilling
sup
count
of
his
Re
Removal of Custodian
for Other
port
making
in lieu of
obligation
pay
general
parties
The
rule is that the
lief.
assets,
ments out of his own
income
litigation
responsible
to
are
for their own
parent
where the
has sufficient financial
counsel
and costs
otherwise
fees
unless
discharge
to
it
Sutliff,
means
himself.
528
provided by statutory authority, agree
A.2d at 1324. PUTMA
accounts
other
parties,
recognized
ment
or some
support
be used
parents
for
before the
Cher-Rob,
exception.
Inc. v. Art Monu
their own
v.
expend
resources. Mackalica
Co.,
Pa.Super.
ment
406
594 A.2d
(Pa.Su
Mackalica,
716 A.2d
657
(1991).
of,
363
review a court’s award
We
Litmans,
per.1998); Litmans
449
award,
or refusаl to
counsel fees for
(1996).
Pa.Super.
396
Miller,
abuse
discretion. Miller v.
¶ 26 Our review of the record reflects
(Pa.Super.1999).
A.2d
790-791
that Father used a portion of the PUTMA
¶
2503(7)
Code,
Section
the Judicial
pay daughter’s
account to
private school
2503(7),
to
right
Pa.C.S.A.
receive
N.T., 8/20/01,
tuition.
at 48. The amount
fees, provides:
counsel
paid
$7,300.00.
for tuition was
Id. at
following participants
The
shall be en-
acknowledged
382. Father
titled to a
part
reasonable counsel fee as
obligated
pay
the school tuition
of the
costs of the
taxable
matter:
pursuant
equitable
to the
distribution or-
(7) Any participant who is awarded
record, thus,
der.
Id. Our
review the
against
counsel fees as a sanction
an-
reflects that Father used funds from
dilatory,
participant
other
for
obdu-
daughter’s PUTMA account
pur-
for the
during
rate or vexatious conduct
pose
fulfilling
support
his
obligation
pеndency of a matter.
making
payments
lieu of
out of his own
thus,
2503(7).
Father,
income and assets.
failed
comply with the mandate of
Section
2503(7) applies
30 Section
to the
of PUTMA.
party
commencing
pro
conduct of a
record, however,
ceeding
during
pendency
fails to reveal
or conduct
Cher-Rob, Inc.,
an inquiry
whether
was made as to wheth-
an action.
A.2d 812 thus, court, apply apply. to conduct that occurred The trial did not does not suit). denying prior to the commencement the abuse its counsel fees discretion Inc.; Cher-Rob, Pentek. Ap to Mother. ¶ 2503(7) upon relies 81 Mother Section pellant’s claim fails.8 complains Code and that the Judicial fees is as a award of counsel warranted ¶ in part affirmed 33 Order Father “for faith con- against sanction bad remanded for part.9 pro reversed in Case matter.” during pendency duct the the ceedings opinion. with this Jur consistent complains at 10. Mother’s Brief Mother isdiction relinquished. by acted in faith exercis- that Father bad ac- ing power custodial over the PUTMA a Dissеnting 34 KLEIN files Judge failing to count for his own benefit and Opinion. of all re- maintain records transactions KLEIN, J., Dissenting: garding property. the custodial ¶ 11 respectfully dissent. 32 Our the review of record reflects ¶ 2 allege majority correctly the rec- Although that Mother fails to how Father during ognizes a transfer to a minor within pendency in bad faith the that engaged the Transfer to Mi- involving Pennsylvania Petition Uniform the matter Mother’s (“PUTMA”)11 irrevocable, nors Act10 Accounting and Petition for Removal the that evidence majority Because no of bad concludes show- allegations Custodian. into ing deposited a PUT- faith to the conduct of Father assets were pertain conclusively MA establishes that a commencing proceeding during or the Moreover, 2503(7) pre apply, raises a 8. even if Section did custodial account rebuttable lacks merit. within the sumption Mother’s claim It is was While that a transfer intended. weigh province the trial sole court to pronouncements courts in sister states presented credibility evidence and assess the authority, pro persuasive those be Palladino, Palladino v. 713 of the witnesses. binding on nouncements are not this Court. 676, (Pa.Super.1998). appeal, A.2d 678 On Bank v. & As Commercial National Seubert not disturb trial court’s this Court will socs., 297, (Pa.Super.2002). either the or the assessment of husband’s Smith, credibility. wife's Brotzman-Smith § 10. 5301-5320. Pa.C.S.A. 509, 471, (1994). Pa.Super. Here, court "we did not the trial found: Assembly repealed the General 11. were out in believe Father's actions carried Pennsylvania Uniform Gifts Minors Act 3/6/02, Opinion, bad Court faith..Trial ("PUGMA”) adopted the revised uniform specifically trial court addressed Fa- act, Pennsylvania Uniform now called the through of monies the Amer- ther’s movement Act. See Act Dec. Transfers to Minors account and itrade account into PUTMA (repealer); § No. see P.L. Tri- Father credible these issues.” "found (West Supp.2002) § also 3/6/02, Opinion, As the trial al Court at 3. (short definitions). The revisions credible, title and the record court found immediately. determination, Barring were effective limited this we would not supports provided exceptions, repealing act credibility court’s determina- disturb the trial Likewise, repealed act would we would transfers made under tion. Brotzman-Smith. trial court's governed by not disturb the conclusion act. See Act the new faith, 152, 26(c). failed to act in bad no since Father Dec. No Under P.L. under fees were to be awarded counsel regardless provision, of when the transfer 2503(7). act, made, apply current PUT- we MA. dissent, colleague our learned advo- In the adopting principle by other followed cates evidence of into a state courts that a transfer
743
meaning
“transfer” -within thе
of the Act
I
agree
5 cannot
that the General As
However,
sembly
has been made.
that
a
ig-
view
intended
create
sort of strict
question
liability
nores the
of whether a
and eliminate the common law re
transfer
quirement that
diverges
was ever intended and
from
the transferor must have
other
actually
give gift.
states’
intended to
a
Admitted
interpretation of the uniform act. I
ly,
derogation
the maxim
“statutes in
disagree.
therefore must
narrowly
of the common law are to be
¶ 3 The
“transfer”
PUTMA refers to
not, strictly
construed” does
speaking, ap
essentially gift.12
is
Section 5301 conclu-
ply here
Statutory
because the
Construc
sorily
defines
“transfer”
“a
as
transac-
tion Act only applies it to statutes that
tion that creates custodial property under
into
came
force before 1937. 1 Pa.C.S.A.
section 5309 (relating to
manner
creat-
1928(a);
§
see also Commonwealth v. Chi
ing
property
effecting
custodial
trans-
507,
490,
appini, 566 Pa.
782 A.2d
492
fer).”
§
20 Pa.C.S.A.
5301. Section 5309
(2001).
in turn
forth
sets
methods of denominating
¶ 6 But
Statutory
Construction Act
being
custody
held in
for a
does not end there.
It
say
continues on to
minor.
20
See
Pa.C.S.A. 5309.
provisions
“[a]ll other
of a statute
¶4
setting
Rather than
forth all that
liberally
shall be
construed
effect
their
needs to be shown to establish that a
objects
justice.”
and to promote
1 Pa.
given
minor was
gift,
assets as a
section
1928(c).
C.S.A.
merely
5309
regulates
delivery
¶ Eliminating
7
requirement
intent
gift
placed
when it is
in a custodial ac
for a PUTMA transfer
patently
is
unfair.
Pennsylvania
count.
long
common law has
is
This
so because no one would expect
held that
the irreducible elements of an
if
one did not
give
intend to
some-
inter
vivos
intent plus delivery.
are
another,
thing to
get
the holder would
McCormick,
See Hera v.
Pa.Super.
keep
property.13 Perhaрs
even more
432,
682,
(1993);
625 A.2d
In re Chap
law,
so than in other areas of the
it is
Estate,
pie’s
719,
332 Pa.
imperative
gener-
that the law of property
(1938);
Trust,
v. Philadelphia
Reese
Safe
ally
average
follow
individuals’ reasonable
Co.,
Deposit
& Ins.
218 Pa.
67 A.
Otherwise,
expectations.
the law loses its
(1907);
Lyon
v. Marclay, 1 Watts
and,
mooring
social realities
in direct
(Pa.1832).
1832WL
at *3
Under the
proportion,
authority.
its
law,
common
once
putative
donee es
prima
tablishes
that he or she re
Moreover,
interpreting
decisional law
facie
ceived an inter
gift,
vivos
the burden shifts
the PUTMA retains both the common law
putative
to the
prove by
donor to
clear and requirement of intent
employs
and even
convincing evidence that the transfer was
burden-shifting analysis. Although
similar
not
gift.
an inter vivos
Lanning
See
v.
I
Pennsylvania
have found no
case control-
West,
(Pa.Super.2002);
issue,14
ling
uniformly
other stаtes
Hanlon,
Lochinger
see also
348 Pa.
hold that
of a
evidence
transfer
into a
(1943).
Construction of
laws. Statutes
have
9
New York courts
example,
those of other states shall
For
uniform with
repeatedly
documentary
evidence
interpreted
be
and construed to effect
held
us,
parent
thority,
to that
pursuant
Pennsylvania
they
a
the
Uni
do not bind
cites
to
belong
Act
the child as
form Gift to Minors
effect
in Commercial National
our decision
Asocs.,
297,
completed gift.” Perlberger
a
a
v.
result
Bank
807 A.2d
v. Seubert &
245,
1186,
Pa.Super.
Perlberger, 426
626 A.2d
Majority Opinion, at
(Pa.Super.2002). See
(1993) (Cirillo, J.)
added).
(emphasis
case
But a fuller examination of that
n.9.
citing Perlberger's
majority says
The
it is
ob
There,
majority’s
on
we
belies the
reliance
it.
relevance,
precedence” ap
“for
not
servation
interpreting
were
a section of
9 of the
Article
parently
repealed.
because the former act was
Code. Because no Penn-
Uniform Commercial
738, n.5.)
(Majority Opinion
explain
at
As I
issue,
sylvania
decided the
we turned to
case
n.6,
below,
interpre
reapply
I would
see
doing, Judge
infra
In so
other states’ decisions.
on
to the
of the UGMA
this issue
tations
Johnson, writing
three-judge
for a unanimous
changes do
not affect the
UTMAbecause
Supreme
panel, quoted
Court: "While it
our
making
general
a
scheme for
custodial trans
a
decisions of sister states are
is
truism that
specifically
fer and the PUTMA
vаlidates all
Court,
binding precedent
they
rights
transfers unless vested
are af
PUGMA
persuasive
and are entitled
authority,
case, Judge
any
observa
fected.
Cirillo’s
greater
consistency and
even
deference where
dictum,
deciding
we were
tion was
as
wheth
application are
ele-
uniformity of
essential
parent
a
could
er
custodial
use the child’s
statutory
comprehensive
ments
scheme
of a
support
account assets to
the child.
PUGMA
contemplated by
like
Id.
[UCC].”
could,
parent
citing specific
We
decided
(quoting
v. Nat’l Bank & Trust
Commonwealth
provision
PUGMA
to that effect. 626 A.2d
Pa.,
Co.
469 Pa.
Cent.
looking
that it
Despite
its claim
(1976)).
reviewing
After
the decisions
however,
Perlberger
guidance,
majority
Massachusetts,
Bankruptcy
Court
ignores
plain understanding
case
our
in that
law,
applying
as well as those
Massachusetts
must have intended and deliv
the donor
Jersey Superior
Court and
New
transfer)
(now
ered
termed a
for PUG-
the Western District of
Bankruptcy Courts for
(now PUTMA)
apply at
all. Nor do I
MA
Maine,
Pennsylvania
District
and for the
Sutliff, 515 Pa.
view
Sutliff
ultimately
we
those
courts’
followed
other
(1987)
governing
as
this issue.
Seubert,
A.2d at 304. Rather than
views.
There,
Supreme Court was concerned
our
majority’s position,
supporting
because
"may
assets
be used to
with whether PUGMA
interpreta-
we in
other courts’
fact embraced
support obligation.” 528
parent's
fulfill a
tion,
following
endorses
sister states’
Seubert
separate
deter
from
A.2d at 1320. That
interpretations
laws.
of uniform
complying with the formali
mining whether
conclusively
ties
the PUGMAor
PUTMA
gift.
recounting
adopted
were
establishes that the assets
how the states
16. After
piecemeal,
UGMA
the drafters
revisions to the
uniformity:
say
this to
about
of the UTMAhad
although
majority
observes that
sister
The
important
"Uniformity
area is
persuasive
au-
in this
interpretations serve
states’
following
proce-
(quotation
of a transfer
UGMA17
Id. at 707-08
and citations omit
ted).
ultimately
Division
Appellate
only
presumption
dures raises
a rebuttable
held that in that
the rebuttal evidence
case
that a transfer was intended. Most re-
only
the evidence
was insufficient because
cently,
Ajamian,
in Estate
270 A.D.2d
showed the decedent’s attitude toward the
(N.Y.App.Div.2000),
executed
open
(1982).
decedent to
each ac- Cal.Rptr. 234
count followed the procedures required
¶ 10
Ohio
Indiana decisions confirm
Moreover,
in the statute.
such properly
that
properly apply
princi-
we should
this
established UGMA accounts constitute
Keith,
ple under the PUTMA.
In State v.
prima
gift
evidence that a
was
facie
App.3d
Ohio
ered himself a owner with his
daughter. Shortly creating after the ac-
count, funds, began withdrawing large part
could afford to with such money.
sum of The trial court further credibility
found as a matter of that the simply
Father’s actions were the result of
ignorance, expression not an of bad faith. a tax- largely
He used the account as maneuver. the evi-
avoidance Because supports
dence the conclusion that Father
lacked intent at the time he cre- donative account, discounting
ated the rather than I importance finding, of that would
affirm. *15 Pennsylvania,
COMMONWEALTH of
Appellee,
v. HETZEL, Appellant.
Michelle M. Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth of
Appellee, Bloss, Appellant.
Brandon
Superior Pennsylvania. Court
Argued Dec. 2002.
Filed March
Reargument May Denied inference,
trial court did not draw the we cannot either.