Claim Of A Life Estate Is Rejected In Estate Litigation Case

In the estate litigation case of Horn v. Richardson, PICS Case No. 15-0798 (C.P. Lycoming April 23, 2015) the Honorable Richard A. Gray ruled that the plaintiffs had a right to immediate possession of the tract of land on which defendant had resided without permission after the court rejected defendant’s claim of a life estate in the property.

A tract of land was deeded to the estates of Ellery Horn and Richard Horn on August 23, 2011. The estate of Ellery Horn and a beneficiary of the estate were plaintiffs. Although Richard Horn died on Aug. 9, 2004, the estate had not been opened, and did not have an executor or administrator.

Plaintiffs were not in possession of the tract of land at issue. Defendant Brian Richardson lived on the tract since 2008. Defendant did not pay anything to live there or not provide any credible evidence that he had permission from any owner of the tract to live there.

Defendant did not introduce into evidence any documents at trial that purport to provide him with any interest in the tract. Although defendant referenced a document, attached to his answer, that he believed gave him a lifetime lease agreement to the tract, since it was not introduced as evidence, the court did not consider it. In any event, the court found that it appeared to be fraudulent.

The court concluded that defendant’s testimony that he has a lifetime lease to the property without cost to him was not credible. Further, defendant did not have permission from Jonathan Horn or any beneficiary of the estate to reside on the tract.

The last will and testament of Mary E. Horn devised her real estate, including the tract at issue, to her sons Ellery and Richard. Plaintiffs met their burden of establishing that, as co-tenants of the tract, they were entitled to immediate possession.

Plaintiffs also met the burden of establishing that defendant had no right to possession of the property. Plaintiffs did not give permission to defendant to possess the property, nor did plaintiffs consent to his possession as a co-tenant.

The court rejected defendant’s contention that his grandmother, Mary E. Horn, provided in her true last will and testament that anyone who cared for his grandmother in her last days had a lifetime lease for the property. The court found that no such provision in the will. There was a provision that provided that the residuary estate be “divided equally among those of my children who care for me during my last days.” However, the residuary estate did not include the specific bequest of the real estate, which included the tract at issue.

The court also rejected Richardson’s contention that Jonathan Horn, Richard’s son, gave defendant a lifetime lease for the property. Jonathan Horn was not present at the proceedings and was not called to testify on defendant’s behalf. The adverse inference was that Jonathan Horn’s testimony would not have supported defendant’s contention and instead would have suggested that Jonathan Horn did not grant defendant permission. In any event, there was no evidence that Jonathan Horn had authority to grant defendant permission to reside at the property.

The court concluded that defendant had no right to possess the property or to continue to reside there. Accordingly, verdict was entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant.

Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 38 PLW 497 (May 26, 2015)

Reference: Will, Life Estate, Estate Litigation

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