Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-1522 EquityPAULINE E. KECK, Plaintiff RONALD L. KECK, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ARTHUR S. KECK, DECEASED, AND RONALD L.: KECK, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-1522 EQUITY TERM CIVIL ACTION IN EQUITY IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Before HOFFER, P. J. and HESS, J. Hoffer, P.J.: Before the court are the preliminary objections of the defendants, Ronald L. Keck, et al., to the complaint of the plaintiff, Pauline E. Keck. The plaintiff brings this action in equity seeking a constructive trust against the estate and against Ronald Keck individually. The defendant, Ronald Keck, on behalf of himself and the Estate of Arthur Keck, has filed Preliminary Objections to this equitable action. The first preliminary objection contends that the plaintiff has failed to state an equitable basis for relief when she already has adequate remedies at law and alleges fraud by the defendant. The second preliminary objection avers that jurisdiction in this court is not proper when the Orphan's Court has exclusive jurisdiction over a decedent's estate and has already assumed jurisdiction over Arthur S. Keck's Estate by granting letters of administration. FACTS Plaintiff, Pauline E. Keck, and Arthur S. Keck ["Decedent"] were married on October 27, 1933. Although neither filed any divorce action over the court of their marriage, the parties apparently endured a long and rocky marriage. The plaintiff brought criminal charges against the decedent which resulted in an ARD disposition in 1999. Throughout their marriage, the plaintiff was fully aware of the fact that the real estate purchased by the decedent was placed into his name alone. On December 20, 2002, Arthur Keck died. His will named one of his sons, Ronald Keck, as his heir and the executor of his estate. Although the plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the will, she did exercise her right to elect against the will, asserting her spousal share of the estate. The plaintiff now brings this action in equity against Ronald Keck, Executor of the Estate and against Ronald Keck individually. She seeks a constructive trust against the estate and against the son individually, claiming the decedent had made financial gifts over the course of his lifetime to his son, Ronald Keck. The defendant, Ronald Keck, on behalf of himself and the Estate of Arthur Keck, has filed two Preliminary Objections. First, the defendant objects to the imposition of a constructive trust. Second, the defendant asserts that the jurisdiction in this court is not proper. DISCUSSION We address the second preliminary objection first. As the defendant objects to the jurisdiction being in the Court of Common Pleas, he argues that the Orphan's Court has exclusive jurisdiction over a decedent's estate and has already assumed jurisdiction over the decedent's estate by granting letters of administration. In his assertion, the defendant correctly relies upon Pope v. Dascher.1 In Pope v. Dascher, the appellant brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County seeking a constructive trust to own title to shares of stock and real estate that were held in the name of the decedent.2 Because the decedent had been holding title to the property for the appellant's benefit, the appellant claimed that the property were assets subject to a constructive trust. The appellee raised a preliminary objection stating that jurisdiction for the case belonged to the Orphan's Court, not the Court of Common Pleas.3 The Common Pleas Court sustained this preliminary objection. The matter was appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did not decide whether a constructive trust existed, but held that the even if there was a constructive trust, proper jurisdiction for the case was in the Orphan's Court. In coming to this conclusion, the Court examined the property separately. First, the Court ruled that the Orphan's Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the shares of stock because it was personal property.4 ~ Pope v. Dasher, 429 Pa. 576, 240 A.2d 518 (1968). 2 Pope, 429 Pa. at 520. 3Id. 4 Although amendments have been made to the Probate Code since the time Pope v. Dascher was decided, the sections that the Court relied upon in rendering its opinion have not changed. The Orphan's Court still has mandatory jurisdiction over the adjudication of Secondly, the Court held that jurisdiction for the real estate, which would be concurrent between the divisions, properly belonged in the Orphan's Court because it had already assumed jurisdiction when it granted letters by the register of wills.5 The case at bar is quite similar to Pope. Much like in Pope where the Orphan's Court had granted letters by the register of wills, the Orphan's case in the present case has also already granted letters of administration prior to the filing of this case in the Common Pleas Court. Therefore, the holding from Pope controls. Since the Orphan's Court has already assumed jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over Arthur S. Keck's estate belongs, not in this court, but in the Orphan's Court.6 CONCLUSION The defendant's preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction is sustained. personal property held in the name of the decedent. The Orphan's Court has concurrent jurisdiction over the adjudication of title to real estate. 20 Pa. C.S.A. sections 711 (17) and 712 (1). 5 Pope, 429 Pa. at 521. 6 The plaintiff cites Binder v. Miller, 60 Pa. D&C 2d 675 (Phila. County 1973). However, this case is factually distinguishable in that only a small portion of the property in Binder was in the possession of the estate, whereas, all the property at issue in the present case is in the possession of the estate and is held by the personal representative of the decedent. Further distinguishing Binder from the present case is the fact that none of the property at issue in Binder was titled in the name of the decedent, whereas in the present case, all of the property at issue was titled in the decedent's name. PAULINE E. KECK, Plaintiff RONALD L. KECK, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ARTHUR S. KECK, DECEASED, AND RONALD L.: KECK, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-1522 EQUITY TERM CIVIL ACTION IN EQUITY IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Before HOFFER, P. J. and HESS, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, December 17, 2003, upon consideration of the Preliminary Objections of defendants to plaintiff's complaint, it is ordered and directed that the objection with respect to jurisdiction is SUSTAINED, and the complaint is dismissed. By the Court, George E. Hoffer, P.J. Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire Anthony T. Lucido, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten Eat High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For the Plaintiff Marcus A. McKnight III, Esquire 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For the Defendants