NEIGHBOR’S CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE FOR HOME HEALTH CARE IS DENIED
The court granted a claim against an estate for charges incurred to clean up decedent’s property, but it denied a claim for home healthcare.
Decedent owned two adjacent parcels of property. One parcel contained his residence, nut due to hoarding issues and lack of running water, decedent had often lived in his truck. James and Sarah Hagner were decedent’s neighbors. Mr. Hagner’s mother, Suzanna DePaolo, resided with the Hagners. Decedent had health issues, and following the amputation of his toe in 2016, he moved into the Hagner residence temporarily. During that time, Mrs. Hagner and Ms. DePaolo took care of him. After he recovered, decedent resumed living in his truck during the summer months. In 2018, decedent sustained injuries in a car accident. Mrs. Hagner and Ms. DePaolo again took care of him. Decedent required extensive assistance with his daily activities and managing his finances. Decedent died in November 2018.
Mr. and Mrs. Hagner made a claim against the estate in the amount of $61,763.46 to reimburse them for expenditures they had made with respect to decedent’s property. The Hagners had hired KMB Plumbing and Electrical to clean up decedent’s property. The amount billed by KMB for the work performed on defendant’s property totaled only $9,911.46. Mr. Hagner had contacted KMB to perform the work, but he claimed that decedent had authorized the hiring of KMB to do the cleanup work on his property. The court disregarded this testimony about decedent’s alleged statement based on the dead man’s rule, codified at 42 Pa. C.S.A. 5930. The Hagners also had a financial interest in the outcome. However, Ms. DePaolo did not have a financial interest regarding this issue, and she testified that decedent had promised to reimburse Mr. Hagner for the cleanup work performed by KMB. The court found Ms. DePaolo’s testimony credible. Additionally, the Hagners were entitled to recover their payment of KMB conferred a benefit on decedent. Therefore, the court allowed the Hagners’ claim against the estate to the extent of $9,911.46.
Sarah Hagner and Suzanne DePaolo made a claim in the amount of $184,200.00 for home healthcare services they provided to decedent during the time he was living in the Hagner household. Relying on the dead man’s rule, the court rejected this claim. These claimants provided no evidence beyond alleged statements allegedly made by decedent that he would compensate them. Although two social service providers testified, their testimony did not establish that decedent agreed to pay Mrs. Hagner and Ms. DePaolo any specific amount. The record did not show with any accuracy how many hours of care these claimants provided. Even if quantum meruit applied, the evidence was not sufficiently detailed to allow the court to arrive at an accurate amount for the care provided. The court was left to speculate about decedent’s intent and the amount of time involved so it denied the claim.
REF: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, In Re Estate of Ackerman, PICS Case NO. 20-0564 (C.P. Monroe, April 27, 2020) 43 PLW 578
Kindly visit our Estate Litigation or Probate and Estate Administration website or contact one of our Estate Attorneys, Philadelphia, or Wills, Trust & Estate Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia for more information on this topic.