Decenent’s Friend Has A Life Estate In Decedent’s Property Per The Terms Of Will
In the estate administration and estate litigation case of In re Estate of Miller, PICS Case No. 15-1108, (C.P. Chester, June 3, 2015) the Honorable Mark L. Tunnell ruled that after looking to the terms of decedent’s will, the respondent was given a personal right to occupy the property at issue. Therefore, the Executrix’s petition to sell the property denied. The Terms Of Will.
Scott Miller died testate in May 2014. At the time of his death, he owned property in Nottingham on which there was a dilapidated commercial building. Attached to the building was an apartment in which Miller had resided with Julia Koliopulos, a good friend, for several years.
Miller’s will left the residue of his estate to his daughter, petitioner Pamela Miller. The will specifically provided that the property was given to Pamela but if Koliopulos survived the decedent, “she shall have the personal right to use and occupy said property, rent free, for the remainder of her life, or until such time as she vacates the property.”
The executrix of the estate filed a petition to sell the property pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.§3353, arguing that because of its condition, the right of occupancy granted to Koliopulos was illegal, impossible of fulfillment and void from inception. Koliopulos argued that she had a life estate and that a sale of the property was neither desirable nor necessary for the proper administration of the estate.
In Pennsylvania, a testator’s intentions would be carried out unless they contravened some positive rule of law or were against public policy. At issue was whether Miller intended to devise an estate in land or merely a privilege, personal to Koliopulos, to reside until she moved away or died.
The court noted that the phrase “use and occupy” had been variously interpreted depending on its use and position in a will and the purpose for which its interpretation was sought. The court then noted the normal indicia of a life estate, including that it was an interest in land held only for the duration of the devisee’s life; was alienable; and was indicated by an obligation for ordinary repairs and maintenance and payment of taxes and mortgages. Also, a life estate had value and a life tenant was entitled to receive a portion of the proceeds attributable to the life estate upon sale of the residence.
By contrast, a right to occupy a residence was ordinarily a personal privilege that was not alienable. Paying rent was an appropriate incident. The holder had no right to a portion of proceeds upon sale of the residence.
Looking to the terms of Miller’s will, the gift of a life estate and others resembled a right of occupancy. Decedent specifically expressed his desire to convey a “personal right” to Koliopulos and relieved her having to pay anything other than utilities. However, he explicitly said she would not have any right of reimbursement for any expenditure she made for the property.
The court concluded, based on a careful reading of the will as a whole and other evidence adduced at the hearing, that the decedent’s intention was that while the property was devised to his daughter, Koliopulos had a right to occupy it, rent free, for the remainder of her life or until she moved elsewhere, not a life estate.
The court concluded that granting the executrix’s request would deprive Koliopulos of the decedent’s gift and it declined to do so based on its interpretation of the will and the circumstances.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 38 PLW 678 (July 21, 2015)
Filed Under: Estate Litigation; Life Estates; Estate Administration
Kindly visit our Probate & Estate Administration & Wills, Trust & Estate Litigation websites for more information on this topic.