Decedents Widow Failed To Preserve Her Right To Challenge The Probate Of Decedent Husband’s Will And To File A Timely Claim For An Elective Share

In the estate litigation case of In Re Beal, PICS Case No. 15-0878, (C.P. Philadelphia May 4, 2015) the Honorable John Herron ruled that the decedents widow, who had filed for divorce, lacked standing to challenge decedent’s will because she failed to preserve her claim.

Albert R. Beal, Sr. died on June 17, 2013. He had executed a will dated June 16, 2011 leaving the residue of his estate to his four children: Albert, Bryan, Nell and Helene. He named his daughter, Nell as executrix. His will left nothing to his “long-separated” wife, Ann, who had filed for divorce. No final divorce decree had been entered at the time of Albert’s death. Following the separation, Albert continued to live in Philadelphia. He also owned property elsewhere in Pennsylvania.

In 2008, decedent was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. Nell, who lived in Maryland, decided to take her father to Maryland in August 2010 so that she could care for him. Decedent never returned to Philadelphia. Nell took care of decedent and his financial affairs.

Seven days after decedent died, Ann’s attorney sent a letter to Nell demanding that as executrix, she file a copy of his will with the Register of Wills for Anne Arundel County in Maryland. Nell, who was unrepresented by counsel, filed the will in Maryland. The will was subsequently transferred to Philadelphia. On Dec. 2, 2013, the Philadelphia Register of Wills granted letters testamentary to Nell.

Ann filed an appeal of the decree of the Philadelphia Register of Wills, asserting that the will should be revoked and transferred to Anne Arundel County, Maryland for probate because decedent was domiciled in Maryland at the time of his death. Nell responded, asserting that the appeal should be dismissed because Ann, though admittedly still married to decedent at the time of his death, lacked standing to bring the appeal because she had no interest in decedent’s estate by virtue of 20 Pa.C.S. §2106(a).

The issue of Ann’s standing to challenge the Register of Wills decree probating her husband’s will in Philadelphia and granting letters testamentary to Nell had to be addressed in the context of decedent’s domicile at the time of his death. This issue was only raised when Nell filed preliminary objections to Ann’s appeal. Nell questioned Ann’s pecuniary interest in the estate. Ann countered that she could elect against decedent’s will under Maryland law. Ann conceded that under 20 PA.C.S.A. §2203(c) she lacked standing to elect against decedent’s will because she filed for divorce and grounds had been established. But she insisted that 20 Pa. C.S.A. §2202 offered her the right to elect against decedent’s will if he died a domiciliary of Maryland.

The Maryland statute Ann invoked would provide standing for Ann’s will contest in Philadelphia when read together with 20 Pa.C.S.A.§ 2202, if she could establish decedent died a Maryland domiciliary. However, there are strict time limits imposed by Maryland statute for filing an election against a decedent’s will.

Ann failed to allege that she filed a timely claim for an elective share in Maryland. While she had the option to do so in Maryland, especially since decedent’s will had been originally filed in Maryland, Ann failed to preserve her claim. Maryland precedent states unambiguously that extensions to the deadlines are granted unless filed within the initial period or a period of extension. Since Ann had no viable claim under Maryland law, she lacked standing to bring her challenge to the probate of decedent’s will in Philadelphia.

Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 38PLW545 (June 9, 2015)

Filed Under: Trust & Estate Litigation, Elective Share; Standing

Kindly visit our Wills, Trusts & Estate Litigation & Probate & Estate Administration website for more information on this topic.