Handwritten Signed Additional Document Found at Decedent’s Residence Admitted to Probate as a Codicil to Will
In the estate and estate litigation case of In re Estate of Basner, PICS 14-1342 (C.P. Chester, Aug. 20, 2014) the Honorable Mark Tunnel admitted to probate a certain handwritten document purportedly signed by the decedent. Handwritten Signed Additional Document Found at Decedent’s Residence Admitted to Probate. The facts of the case are as follows:
Decedent’s mother appealed to the orphans’ court division from the order of the Register of Wills, which admitted to probate a certain handwritten document purportedly signed by decedent. After hearing the matter de novo, the court denied the appeal.
Jeffery K. Basner, decedent, died on June 7, 2012. Decedent married Sally J. Basner on April 23, 2005. Ellen Basner was decedent’s mother. Decedent resided at 106 Sunnyside Road, West Grove, Chester County, Pa. for over 30 years until his death. On July 7, 1995 and prior to his marriage to Sally J. Basner, decedent signed a holographic document which stated: “I leave all my worldly possessions to Ellen Basner 7/7/95 s/Jeffrey K. Basner.”
An additional document was located at decedent’s residence after his death. The document was apparently signed by decedent, but it bore no date. It was the subject of this appeal. The document stated: “At the time of my death, the house goes to Sally Munro, s/Jeffery K. Basner.”
The document did not in any way revoke nor even refer to the 1995 document which was written and signed by the decedent. “Sally Munro” was the maiden name of decedent’s wife, Sally J. Basner, and the name was used occasionally by decedent during their marriage.
As the parties agreed that the 1995 document was indeed a will, the only question raised on appeal was whether the other document was signed before, or after, the 1995 will. If before, then obviously the 1995 document leaving “all worldly goods” to ‘Ellen Basner would necessarily prevail, and govern distribution. If signed after the 1995 will, the issue was whether it was a codicil.
The Munro codicil was very short. The court analyzed its components: (1) was the signature authentic, (2) did decedent really refer to his wife by her maiden name and, if so did that mean the document was executed before their 2005 marriage; (3) what was “the house;” and (4) what was the import of “at the time of my death.”
The court concluded the signature was genuine on the Munro codicil. The named beneficiary on the Munro codicil was Sally Munro. There was no doubt who that individual was. Sally was however, only in the picture as of 2003. The questioned document was not only post- 1995 but post-marriage in 2005 as well. Decedent owned the house on Sunnyside for 35 years. That was undoubtedly what he was referring to and not some other potential partial ownership of a future interest in something else.
Finally, the phrase “at the time of my death” clearly was testamentary. The document referred to as the Munro codicil is a valid testamentary disposition. It was executed by decedent after the 1995 will and after his 2005 marriage to Sally Munro, now Sally Basner. The document is a codicil entitled to probate Appeal was denied.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 37 PLW 837 (September 2, 2014).
Filed Under: Estate Litigation; Will, Codicil
Please visit our Estate Planning and Probate/Estate Administration websites for more information on this topic.