SURVIVNG WIFE’S RIGHT TO RESIDE IN DECENDENT’S HOME REQUIRES HER TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FUTURE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
In the estate litigation appellate case of In Re Estate of Culig, PICS Case No. 16-0408 (Pa. Super. March 18, 2016) the Honorable Mary Jane Bowes, writing on behalf of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, held that the trial court erred in holding that will only gave wife a life estate in a house, because the will only gave her a “right to reside”, but trial court correctly held that she responsible for future repairs and maintenance to the house during her occupancy and that husband’s children, the remaindermen, were responsible for capital improvements,
Husband died leaving wife the “right to reside” in the residence in his will. Wife filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that husband’s children, the residuary heirs, were responsible for past and future repairs and maintenance to the house. In her argument she relied on the terms of the will and prenuptial agreement that required husbands to cover the costs of repairs, maintenance and capital improvements from his sole and separate assets during the marriage.
The trial court found that wife was a “life tenant” and the she was responsible for future repairs, improvements and maintenance. The trial court held children responsible only for capital improvements. Wife appealed.
On appeal wife contended that the trial court erred in not holding that the prenuptial agreement and the will created license, or a right to occupy, and not a life estate and erred in holding that wife was obligated to make future repairs and maintenance. The court found that, under case law, wife did not possess a life estate but only a right to reside or a mere license or privilege to continue to occupy the residence. Thus trial court erred in finding wife to be a life tenant.
The court further found there was no material distinction between the interest enjoyed by a life tenant and that owned by a person who had the right of residency as regarding repairs and maintenance. In both cases the person lived on the real estate in question, and the remaindermen had a right to use the property only on the occurrence of contingency. In both cases, the life tenant/ possessor of a right to reside lived on the property when routine repairs became necessary. Wife was enjoying the use of the home and had to be legally required to satisfy the costs of ordinary maintenance and repairs necessitated by the use.
The court further looked to the will and prenuptial agreement that husband intended to shift the obligation to make repairs and maintain the house to wife after termination of the marriage and that there was nothing to suggest that he intended to require his children to provide monetary support to wife by making them pay for repairs in the home she resided in. Wife’s argument that the prenuptial agreement bound husband’s estate was misguided, because husband’s children were neither his estate, nor were they signatories to the prenuptial agreement.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 39 PLW 325 (April 5, 2016)
Filed Under: Life Tenant; Right to Reside; Duty to Repair
Kindly visit our Wills, Trusts & Estate Litigation website for more information on this topic.