ESTATE BENEFICIARY WAIVES RIGHT TO CHALLENGE SALE OF ESTATE PROPERTY BY NOT APPEALING COURT ORDER AFFIRMING SALE
Estate beneficiary waived challenge to private sale of estate property by failing to appeal from order affirming sale.
The estate of Sophia Krasinski, deceased, and Patricia Krasinski-Duznik cross-appealed from the order granting in part and denying in part exceptions to the order confirming the first and final account of the estate. Decedent had four children – Patricia, Eleanor, James, and Edward. Pursuant to decedent’s will, Edward was named executor of her estate. The will directed decedent’s debts and funeral expenses paid from estate assets, with the residue left in equal shares to the four children. The estate’s primary assets included three parcels of real estate.
Edward petitioned to permit private sale of the real estate to the heirs. Patricia objected, alleging she owned the properties pursuant to an oral agreement between her and decedent. The orphans’ court granted the petition when Patricia failed to produce a writing to satisfy the statute of frauds, or present sufficient evidence to take the alleged oral agreement out of the statute of frauds. Prior to sale, the estate’s attorney assured Patricia that if she did not purchase all of Homestead Place, one of the estate’s parcels, they could maintain ownership of the home and barn on the property. The three remaining children purchased Homestead Place, but contrary to the estate’s attorney’s assertion Patricia’s continued ownership of the house and barn was not included in the deed.
After the orphans’ court approved the property sale, Patricia filed objections challenging the method of private sale and the failure to except the house and barn at Homestead Place, in addition to challenges to the value of the properties and the resulting tax implications. The orphans’ court granted one objection in part to the extent that natural gas payments for Homestead Place were the property of Patricia and not the estate. However, the orphans’ court overruled the remaining objections.
On appeal, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part, remanding for further proceedings. The court first affirmed the overruling of Patricia’s objections to the sale of the parcels, ruled that Patricia had waived her argument by failing to appeal from the order confirming the sale. The court noted that the order was appealable as of right pursuant to Rule 342. The court also noted that Patricia had failed to appeal from her civil suit, in which the trial court ruled that there was no valid agreement upon which Patricia could establish her ownership of the estate’s properties.
However, the court reversed the order concerning the tax implications of the sale. The court ruled that, because the real property was not specifically devised by the will, the taxable gain should have been allocated to the estate as the seller of the real estate. The court note that decedent’s will provided for taxes to be paid from the residuary estate. Finally, the court reversed the granting of Patricia’s exceptions to the natural gas payments, holding that the estate was entitled to a hearing when the orphans’ court took judicial notice of a deed underpinning its decision.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 41 PLW 509 (Tuesday, May 29, 2018), In Re: Estate of Krasinski, PICS Case No. 18-0633 (Pa. Super. May 15, 2018)
Kindly visit our Probate & Estate Administration or Estate Litigation websites or contact one of our Estate Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia or Estate Attorneys, Philadelphia at 215-977-8200 for more information on this topic.