OPINION EVIDENCE BY EXPERTS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO SUSTAIN A FINDING OF WILL FORGERY

• Wednesday, December 30, 2020
• Category: Wills, Trusts and Estate Litigation

Petitioner failed to establish forgery in the execution of decedent’s will, so the court denied his request for relief.

Decedent died in June 2017. She had executed a will in 2014, which gave 50 percent to a friend, and the remainder to the Salvation Army.

Petitioner sought to set aside the probate decree, alleging fraud, forgery, undue influence and lack of capacity. He claimed that decedent’s 2012 will, under which petitioner was a beneficiary, was the controlling one. The administrator of the estate filed a motion for sanctions against petitioner due to his failure to provide responses to discovery requests. The court granted the administrator’s motion for sanctions, dismissing the claims for undue influence and lack of capacity. The case proceeded to hearing on the issues of forgery and fraud.

At the hearing, petitioner presented testimony from Sandy Stevens, a certified document examiner. Ms. Stevens testified that she was suspicious that decedent did not sign her name in full in several locations of the 2014 will. She also referenced a number of other issues that she believes were red flags, including the lack of page numbers, the use of initials, and discrepancies in the formation of some of the letters. Ms. Stevens also asserted that decedent’s attorney must have engaged in fraud because he signed as a witness. She further insisted that the signatures of the other witness and the notary were forgeries as well.

Mark Primrose was the attorney who drafted decedent’s 2014 will. He had represented the decedent in other matters as well. He testified that he has taken the will to decedent for signature, because she was in a rehabilitation facility following an automobile accident. Attorney Primrose stated that he saw decedent sign the will. Another attorney was also present, and he testified that he saw decedent sign the will. The notary public verified that she saw decedent execute the 2014 will and that the signature on that document was that of decedent.

Opinion evidence by experts was not sufficient by itself to sustain a finding of forgery when witnesses presented direct, credible evidence that they saw decedent sign the will. Kadilak Will, 174 A.2d 870. The court did not find any evidence of forgery or fraud in the execution of decedent’s 2014 will. Petitioner presented no evidence at all regarding fraud. On the issue of forgery, the court found that petitioner’s evidence was not convincing in light of the credible testimony of the three individuals who were present when decedent signed the 2014 will. None of these individuals had any motive to lie, and the court found no reason to doubt their testimony. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner’s request to set aside the probate decree.

Ref: Digests of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 43 PLW 1096, Tuesday, December 1, 2020, In re: Estate of Gallo, PICS No. 20-1201 (C.P. Monroe, Oct. 22, 2020)

Kindly visit our Estate Litigation or Probate & Estate Administration website or contact one of our Estate Attorneys, Philadelphia or Estate Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia for more information on this topic.