The Writing of the Decedent Failed to Meet the Requirements of a Holographic Will
In the estate law and estate litigation case of In Re Estate of Edward A. Rosboschil, PICS Case No.14-0725 (Pa. Super. May 1, 2014), the Honorable Judith Ference Olson, writing on behalf of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, affirmed a lower court’s order that denied appellant Craig Martin’s request to amend his petition revoking previously issued letters of administration de bonis non based upon a holographic will.
Decedent Edward A. Rosboschil passed away on June 29, 2009. Thereafter, decedent’s wife, Mary J. Rosboschil, secured letters of administration for decedent’s estate; Ms. Rosboschil passed away of Feb. 22, 2010. Glenn M. Lampert, executor of Mary’s estate, petitioned the Dauphin County Register of Wills for letters of administration de bonis non on behalf of decedent’s estate; the registrar issued the letters pursuant to said request.
On Dec. 8, 2011, Martin filed an amended petition asking the court to revoke the letters of administration previously granted to Lampert. In addition, the amended petition asked the court to grant letters testamentary to Martin based upon a holographic will allegedly executed by decedent on March 17, 2003 which stated that Martin was his power of attorney who may take those assets Martin desired even in the event of decedent’s death.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the Orphans’ court denied Martin’s amended petition holding that the proffered instrument could not be treated as a will because it did not contain a testamentary disposition. Martin appealed arguing the Orphans’ court erred and abused its discretion in concluding the writing in question failed to meet the requirements for a valid holographic will under Pennsylvania law. Martin stated the document was in writing, signed by decedent, and revealed his testamentary intent.
The court affirmed the Orphans’ court order denying Martin’s amended petition. While Pennsylvania courts have not restricted the form that a valid will may take, the courts hold the substance of the document must intend the gift to be effectuated after testator’s death. “The important and usual incident of such testamentary document is that it vests no present interest but is intended to become operative only after the death of the maker, and until that time it continues to be ambulatory and may be revoked by testator.” In re Wolfe’s Estate, 130 A. 501, 502 (Pa. 1925). Here, the Orphans’ court correctly concluded that the writing did not include a positive testamentary disposition because it permitted Martin to exercise his authority during decedent’s life. The document unambiguously stated the gift or transfer was effective prior to decedent’s death.
Because the writing contemplated a gift or transfer that took effect prior to decedent’s death, the court concluded that the proffered instrument was not a testamentary disposition, and, thus, failed to meet the requirements for a valid holographic will under Pennsylvania law. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the Orphans’ court order denying Martin’s amended petition revoking previously issued letters of administration and granting him letters of administration de bonis non.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 37 PLW 470 (May 20, 2014)
Filed Under: Estate Law: Estate Litigation: Wills: Holographic Wills
Contact our Philadelphia Estate Planning Law Firm with any questions, comments or concerns. We have the experienced Philadelphia Estate And Trust Litigation Attorneys to help you on your questions and concerns, Give us a call now!