ORAL PROMISE THAT SON COULD CONTINUE TO LIVE IN HOME WAS INADMISSIBLE AND CONTRARY TO WILL

• Thursday, January 17, 2019
• Category: Wills, Trusts and Estate Litigation

A decedent’s will expressly devised his residence to one of his sons, and the Dead Man’s Rule precluded the admissibility of contrary statements by the decedent. The court granted a motion by the devisee to exclude other family members from the residence.

Raymond Alan Bisbing, Sr. died on May 29, 2018. He had a will dated April 27, 2018, which named the decedent’s son, Raymond Bisbing, Jr. as the executor under his will. Decedent owned a mobile home which his will specifically devised to the executor. Prior to the decedent’s death, the executor and his brother Ronnie Bisbing had been living in the home. Ronnie remained in the home after the decedent died, and Ronnie’s son Brett also sometimes stayed at the residence. The executor sought to evict Ronnie and Brett from the residence.

Ronnie did not contest the will, but he maintained that the decedent wanted both him and the executor to continue living together at the residence to take care of each other. Ronnie and his step-sister both testified that approximately one month prior to his death, the decedent told them that he wanted the brothers to continue living together in the home after he died.

The court held that the decedent’s statements were hearsay and not admissible to show his intent. The Dead Man’s Rule contained in Pa.C.S.A §5930 barred the admission of oral statements of a decedent that were favorable to one party in the action and adverse to the interest of the decedent.

The will clearly and unambiguously stated that the residence was to pass to the executor. It placed no conditions or other qualifiers on this specific devise. Although the decedent could have stated in his will that he intended for Ronnie to continue living in the home, the will was silent on that issue. The probate record did not indicate the existence of any later will, codicil or written amendment that changed the disposition of the decedent’s residence. Regardless of what the decedent may have orally expressed in his final days, such statements did not supersede the specific intent contained in the will. Therefore, the court concluded that the plain language of the will should not be disturbed.

The court issued an order granting the executor’s petition for exclusive possession of the residence.

Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 41 PLW 1078, Tuesday, November 13, 2018, In re Estate of Binsbing, PICS Case No. 18-1307 (C.P. Monroe Oct. 16, 2018)

Kindly visit our Estate Litigation and Estate Planning websites or contact one of our Estate Planning Attorneys, Philadelphia or Estate Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia at 215-977-8200 for more information on this topic.