Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21-2006-455 Orphans' IN RE: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : ESTATE OF HENRY J. GROTHE : NO. 2006-0455 : : ORPHANS’ COURT DIVISION RE: INTERPRETATION OF WILL In this case the executrix and other potential heirs have requested an interpretation of Decedent’s will. The Decedent’s will is dated May 5, 1999 and contains the following bequest listed at “Item III”: “I give and bequeath the rest and remainder of my estate whatsoever the same may be and wheresoever the same may be situate to my daughter, Marsha A. Grothe, her heirs and assigns”. The Decedent, Henry J. Grothe, died on March 8, 2006 and was a single man at the time. Marsha Grothe, the daughter listed in Item III, predeceased him and died on August 3, 2001. Marsha died testate but without issue. Her last will and testament executed on December 31, 1991, made the following bequests: A. The sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) to my friend DAVID FREEDMAN of Berkeley, California. B. The sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) to my godson STEVEN KEEZER of Danville, California. C. The residue of my estate shall go as follows: 1. One-half to my mother BEVERLY VELMA SOKEL. In the event she should predecease me or fail to survive me for a period of sixty (60) days, then the bequest made under this subparagraph 1 shall go to my stepfather JOSEPH SOKEL. In the event he should likewise predecease me or fail to survive me for a period of sixty (60) days, then the bequest made under this subparagraph 1 shall be added to and disposed of as provided under subparagraph 2 below. 2. One-half to my brother RANDOLPH THOMAS SOKEL of Westhampton, New York. In the event he shall predecease me or fail to survive me for a period of sixty (60 days), then to his children MICHAEL SOKEL and WESLY SOKEL and any other children born to or adopted by him, by right of representation. At the time Henry Grothe died he had the following issue, Henry J. Grothe, II, Marsha Grothe (deceased), Theodore Grothe, Susan Grothe, Paul Grothe and Gina Hunking. In his will he bequeathed all of his real estate to his son Henry J. Grothe, II, his heirs and assigns. The remainder of his estate was bequeathed to Marsha J. Grothe, her heirs and assigns. In “Item VII” of his will the Decedent Henry Grothe stated the following: “I purposely make no provisions in this my Last Will for my son, Theodore Grothe, my daughter, Susan Grothe, my son, Paul Grothe, and my daughter, Gina Hunking, for reasons that I deem just and proper”. Respondents Susan Grothe and Gina Hunking claim that the Decedent’s residual gift to Marsha fails because Marsha predeceased the Decedent and since Marsha left no issue they claim that Pennsylvania’s anti-lapse statute does not save the gift. As a result they claim that the gift to Marsha falls into intestacy and therefore, must be divided pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Intestacy laws, with the remainder of Henry Grothe’s estate passing in equal shares to living children. The Executrix maintains that this interpretation fails to give affect to the phrase “her heirs and assigns” which immediately follows Marsha’s name in the Decedent’s will. This Court also notes that the children’s interpretation violates the well settled principle “that one who writes a will is presumed to intend to dispose of all of his estate and not to die intestate as to any portion of it; accordingly, a will must be construed to avoid an intestacy if it is possible to do so, In re Carmany’s Estate, 1947, 357 Pa. 296, 299, 53 2 A.2d 731, 732, 174 A. L. R. 311, and all doubts are resolved against intestacy. Siple v. Greumelli, 1947, 357 Pa. 237, 241, 53 A.2d 607”. In re Butler’s Estate, 364 Pa. 279, 282, 72 A.2d 110, 112 (1950). In interpreting the term “her heirs and assigns” the Rules of Construction of Wills found at 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 2514 will be applied. Section 2514(4) is titled “Meaning of ‘Heirs’ and ‘Next of Kin’” etc.; time of ascertaining class. It provides in pertinent part that: “A devise or bequest of real or personal estate… to the testator’s or another designated person’s ‘heirs’ or ‘next of kin’ or ‘relatives’ or ‘family’… or to ‘the persons thereunto entitled under the intestate laws’ or to persons described by words of similar import shall mean those persons… who would take under the intestate laws if the testator or other designated person were to die intestate at the time when the class is to be ascertained…” This rule would dictate that the words used in Henry Grothe’s will which immediately follow the gift of the residuary to Marsha are to be understood to mean that if Marsha predeceased Henry, “heirs“ means Marsha’s intestate heirs. Since Marsha was not married at her death, and she had no children, the intestacy law found at 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 2103 would then require that her Mother Beverly Sokel should inherit Marsha’s lapsed gift. The children, Susan Grothe and Gina Hunking, object to such an interpretation. They rely on a series of cases in which the Courts of Pennsylvania have generally held the meaning of the words “heirs and assigns” are words of limitation and not purchase or succession. When “heirs and assigns” are used in this fashion they indicate the nature of the estate which is given and not the persons to whom it is to be given. See Estate of Sykes, 477 Pa. 254, 383 A.2d 920 (1978); In re Butler’s Estate, 364 Pa. 279, 72 A.2d 110, (1950); In re Estate of Witte, 102 Pa.Super. 535, 157 A. 328 (1931). Reliance on this meaning, however, fails to recognize some of the more fundamental principles of law outlined in these cases. 3 One such fundamental principle is the “cardinal rule that a will is to be construed according to the intent of the testator.” Estate of Sykes, 477 Pa. 254, 383 A.2d 920 (1978). In re Buehler’s Estate, 16 Pa. D&C 524 (1931), relied on by the children to determine the meaning of the term “heirs and assigns,” is based on the holding in In re Estate of Witte, 102 Pa.Super. 535, 157 A. 328 (1931). This case clearly indicates that the interpretation of the words “heirs and assigns forever” as words of limitation and not succession “prevails unless it plainly appears from the context of the will that such was not the testator’s intention” Id. at 538. There is nothing clearer in the will of Henry Grothe than his declaration in Item VII that he did not want Susan Grothe and Gina Hunking to inherit anything. The Sykes case is therefore not analogous. In that case, the intent of the testator to disinherit his adopted children in favor of individuals of blood descent was not clearly stated. In this case, the intent to disinherit is crystal clear. There is no question in Pennsylvania that a person can disinherit his children. “Respected men and women, as well as eccentric people, sometimes make sound and sometimes eccentric wills. Courts, heirs and excluded beneficiaries often wish (1) they could change or delete clear and plain and specific language or (2) rewrite a will to expand or change the testator’s bounty in order to conform to what they believe would be a fairer or wiser or to conform to what they think the testator would have said if he had foreseen the existing facts and circumstances. But that is not and never has been the law of Pennsylvania”. In re Estate of Little, 403 Pa. 534, 536-37, 170 A.2d 106, 107 (1961). The children assert that it would never have been the intent of the decedent to have his former wife be his contingent heir. However, the record before this Court does not establish this contention. One fact that does stand out is that the decedent obviously knew his daughter had died prior to him in 2001 and that he did not change his will in the 5 years following her death before he died. When all is said and done, the clear intent 4 stated in Henry Grothe’s will is that Susan Grothe and Gina Hunking were to inherit nothing from him. Accordingly, in this case, to give affect to the entire phrase in question, “Marsha Grothe, her heirs and assigns”, Pennsylvania law provides that Henry intended to give the residuary of his estate to Marsha’s “heirs” as defined in the Rules of Construction. Those “heirs” would be people who would inherit if Marsha died intestate. The laws of intestacy would first have provided for Marsha’s spouse and children to inherit her estate and in default of same to her parents. Since Henry was her father, her only remaining parent and Henry’s ex-wife, Beverly Sokel is to receive the gift according to law. By the Court, Date M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Michael A. Scherer, Esquire 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dierdre James, Esquire Conway, Farrell, Curtin & Kelly, P.C. th 48 Wall Street, 20 Floor New York, NY 10005 Robert P. Grubb, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Steven J. Hogg, Esquire 19 South Hanover Street Suite 101 Carlisle, PA 17013 bas 5