MEDICAL RECORDS FROM A HOSPICE 10 DAYS BEFORE WILL WAS SIGNED IS ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE FOR WILL CHALLENGE
In the estate litigation case of Estate of Kiefner, PICS Case No. 18-0905 (Pa. Super., July 8, 2016) the Honorable John T. Bender, writing on behalf of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, ruled that the Orphans’ Court erred in dismissing daughters’ petition to challenge father’s will that disinherited them and gave the entire estate to his nephew because Orphans’ Court was incorrect in refusing to allow medical records from a hospice regarding the decedent’s state of mind 10 days before the will was signed, into evidence on the bald assertion that the evidence was hearsay.
Daughters challenged the probate of their father’s will, alleging that he lacked testamentary capacity when he executed a will four days before his death disinheriting his daughters and leaving everything to his nephew and naming nephew executor. The Orphans’ Court found that an attorney executed the will, that decedent did not have a close relationship with his daughters, had not seen them in several years prior to his death and had not told them he was ill with cancer and that nephew was decedent’s primary caregiver during the last few weeks of his life. Orphans’ Court dismissed daughters’ petition, and they appealed.
On appeal, daughters’ contended that the court erred in determining that they had failed to prove the weakened intellect prong of the test per In re Estate of Clark, even though the court had denied nephew’s request for a non-suit at the end of daughters’ case in chief. They argued that the court’s refusal to enter a non-suit was contradictory to its final determination. Nephew persuasively argued that the standard to support a non-suit was manifestly different than what had to be proven to show undue influence. Although Orphans’ Court did not provide a reason for denying the non-suit, the denial did not foreclose its ability to determine that daughters had failed to carry their burden of providing that decedent suffered from a weakened intellect.
Daughters’ also erroneously contended that the sole reason that the Orphans’ Court found that they failed to prove undue influence was because they presented no medical expert testimony. The Orphans’ Court actually relied on the fact that “no testimony whatsoever” was submitted to show that decedent was threatened or coerced in any way by nephew. The Orphans’ Court also relied on the testimony of the attorney who prepared the will who was also handling the decedent’s asbestos related lawsuit. Furthermore, although a reference by the Orphans’ Court to testimony of decedent’s neighbor about confusion would have been helpful, it was clear that the Orphans’ Court placed more emphasis on the attorney’s testimony and that it did not find the neighbor’s testimony sufficiently creditable to overcome attorney’s testimony.
Daughters’ also challenged the orphans’ court’s refusal to admit medical records from a hospice that allegedly showed decedent’s state of mind 10 days before the will was signed. The Orphans’ Court erred in refusing to allow the records based upon a bald assertion that the evidence was hearsay.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 309 PLW 709 (July 26, 2016)
Filed Under: Will Challenge; Undue Influence; Weakened Intellect; Medical Records
Kindly visit our Wills, Trusts & Estate Litigation website for more information on this topic.