Decedent’s Will Was Not A Product Of Undue Influence
In the estate litigation case of Estate of Sayer, PICS Case No. 15-0620, (Pa. Super. April 13, 2015), the Honorable Jack A. Panella, writing on behalf of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, ruled that decedent’s will was not the product of undue influence when the sole beneficiary of the will was not in a confidential relationship with decedent. The order of the trial court affirmed.
The children and grandchildren of decedent Sheila Sayer appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees Elizabeth Campbell, the sole beneficiary under decedent’s will, and Joseph Siedlarz, Esq., the scrivener and executor of decedent’s will. Siedlarz prepared several wills over the years for decedent, including her final will prior to her death that made no provision for her children and/or grandchildren. Instead, decedent designated her friend, Campbell, as the sole beneficiary, and designated Siedlarz as the sole executor in contrast to prior versions that named him co-executor.
After decedent’s death, appellants filed a formal caveat and objection to the admission of the will. After a hearing by the Register of Wills, the caveat was dismissed and the will admitted to probate. Appellants then filed a petition for citation sur appeal, alleging that decedent lacked testamentary capacity when she executed the will, and, alternatively, that the will was the product of undue influence. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees.
The court first ruled that appellants had waived their argument that the register of wills erred by admitting decedent’s will to probate when, allegedly, only one of the two subscribing witnesses appeared before the register, by failing to raise this issue before the register or the lower court.
Appellants further argued that the register erred in admitting the will to probate because questions of material fact existed as to decedent’s testamentary capacity and whether the will was the product of undue influence.
The court noted that in order to have testamentary capacity, a testator needed to be aware of the composition of his or her estate and know what he or she wanted to so with it. However, the court found that appellants failed to show any evidence that decedent was unaware of the composition of her estate.
The court further found that decedent’s will was not the product of undue influence. It noted that in order to prove undue influence, appellants had to show that, at the time of the execution of the will, decedent suffered from a weakened intellect, that there was a person in a confidential relationship with decedent, and that person received a substantial benefit under the will. However, the court again noted that the evidence established that decedent was of very strong intellect at the time of the execution of the will, and found that Campbell, though long-time friends with decedent, did not have a confidential relationship with her.
Finally, the court ruled that appellants had waived their argument that the trial court erred in denying their request for sanctions, under Pa.R.Civ.P. 4019(c)(1), by failing to provide the court with a coherent, developed argument supported by relevant legal authority.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 38 PLW 398 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)
Filed Under: Trusts and Estates; Lack of Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence; Will Challenge
Kindly visit our Estate Litigation website for more information on this topic.