Executrix Cannot Deprive Tenant Of Her Right Of Occupancy Of An Apartment Attached To Commercial Building
In the estate administration and estate litigation case of In Re Estate of Miller, PICS Case No. 15-1330 (C.P. Chester, June 3, 2015) the Honorable Mark L. Tunnell ruled that the executrix of decedent’s will was not entitled to force a sale of his real property based on its dilapidated condition, which would dispossess respondent and deprive her of the testator’s grant of a personal right of occupancy in an apartment on the property.
The executrix of the Estate of Scott P. Miller filed a petition to sell a parcel containing a dilapidated commercial building. Attached to this was an apartment where decedent resided with respondent Julia Koliopulos for several years before his death. Because of the condition of the property, petitioner alleged that the right of occupancy granted to respondent was illegal, impossible of fulfillment and void from inception.
Koliopulos responded that she had a life estate and that the sale of the property was neither desirable nor necessary for the proper administration and distribution of the estate. Respondent opposed petitioner’s request for a forced sale regardless of the building’s condition because, examining the will as a whole, such action would violate the intent of the testator.
The court determined that Koliopulos had a right of occupancy, not a legal life estate. Further, notwithstanding the dilapidated condition of the commercial building to which her apartment was attached, it would be against the testator’s intention to dispossess her and make her gift worthless under the circumstances presented.
The court noted that some of the expressions in decedent’s will resembled the gift of a life estate and other resembled the gift of the personal privilege of a right of occupancy.
Decedent’s will described his intention to convey a “personal right” to Koliopulos. Decedent relieved his friend of paying rent or paying anything other than utilities. He was explicit that respondent would not have any right of reimbursement for any expenditure that she made to the property. Reading the provisions of the will as a whole and considering the other evidence adduced, the court found that it was decedent’s intention that the real estate owned by him at the time of his death, while devised to his daughter, remain available to Koliopulos for as long as she wished to reside there, or for her life.
The court further addressed petitioner’s argument that the court should not give effect to the occupation of the property by Koliopulos because the structure to which her apartment was attached violated local building codes. Neither decedent nor petitioner received a certificate of occupancy for the apartment where respondent resided. Given the deteriorated condition of the wall to which the apartment abutted, it was uncertain whether any certificate of occupancy could be acquired. Petitioner urged that the property could not be repaired without demolishing the apartment and that any right of occupancy under the will was unenforceable as against public policy.
The court found that the gift of a right of occupancy to Koliopulos did not offend any social policy. Further, this was not a municipal enforcement action and the township was not a party. The court declined to grant the executrix’s administrative request.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 38 PLW 821 (Sept 1, 2015)
Filed Under: estate Litigation; Estate Administration; Life Estate
Kindly visit our Probate & Estate Administration & Wills, Trusts & Estate Litigation websites for more information on this topic.