Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-870 Orphans // 91-34 Equity RONALD F. KUHN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF RICHARD L. KUHN, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioners/Appellants : : v. : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : AUDREY L. KUHN, : individually, DAVID A. : GRIFFIE, individually, : and FARMERS TRUST : COMPANY as Executor of : the Estate of FRED D. : KUHN, : NO. 21-90-870 Respondents : RONALD F. KUHN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF RICHARD L. KUHN, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : v. : CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY AUDREY L. KUHN, : individually, DAVID A. : GRIFFIE, individually, : DENNIS E. GRIFFIE, : individually, and : FARMERS TRUST COMPANY : as Executor of the : Estate of FRED D. KUHN, : Defendants : NO. 34 EQUITY 1991 IN RE: ADJUDICATION BEFORE OLER, J. DECREE NISI AND NOW, this ~3~ day of February, 1995, after careful consideration of Petitioner-Appellants' Appeal from Probate at No. 21-90-870 Orphans' Court Division, and Plaintiffs' Complaint at No. 34 Equity 1991, and following a consolidated hearing/trial, the Court finds that the actions of Decedent Fred D. Kuhn challenged herein were not the product of undue influence. ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds in favor of Respondents and KUHN V. KUHN NO. 21-90-870 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 34 Equity 1991 against Petitioner-Appellants, and dismisses the appeal, at No. 21- 90-870 Orphans' Court Division, and in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs, and dismisses the complaint, at No. 34 Equity 1991. THIS Decree shall become a Final Decree unless a post-trial motion is filed within ten days pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler~ Jr., J. P. Richard Wagner, Esq. 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Petitioners/ Appellants/Plaintiffs Stephen L. Bloom, Esq. Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Respondents/ Defendants : rc 2 RONALD F. KUHN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF RICHARD L. KUHN, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioners/Appellants : v. : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : AUDREY L. KUHN, : individually, DAVID A. : GRIFFIE, individually, : and FARMERS TRUST : COMPANY as Executor of : the Estate of FRED D. : KUHN, : NO. 21-90-870 Respondents : RONALD F. KUHN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF RICHARD L. KUHN, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : v. : CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY : AUDREY L. KUHN, : individually, DAVID A. : GRIFFIE, individually, : DENNIS E. GRIFFIE, : individually, and : FARMERS TRUST COMPANY : as Executor of the : Estate of FRED D. KUHN, : Defendants : NO. 34 EQUITY 1991 IN RE: ADJUDICATION BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and DECREE NISI Oler, J. In these cases, consolidated for purposes of hearing and trial, Ronald F. Kuhn and Richard L. Kuhn seek (a) a declaration that a certain will and codicil admitted to probate are invalid~ and (b) the rescission of several inter vivos transfers by the ~ Appeal from Probate, Kuhn v. Kuhn, No. 21-90-870 Orphans' Court Division. KUHN V. KUHN NO. 21-90-870 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 34 Equity 1991 decedent.2 The basis for the requested relief in each case is undue influence. A hearing and trial were held on the matter on Wednesday, November 30, 1994, and Friday, February 3, 1994. For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the relief requested will be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS Fred D. Kuhn (Decedent), a widower and resident of Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, died on December 24, 1990, at the age of 76. His estate was valued at a little over $100,000 for inheritance tax purposes. Decedent was survived by two adult sons, Ronald F. Kuhn and Richard L. Kuhn, and an adult daughter, Audrey L. Kuhn.3 In addition, he was survived by two grandsons, David A. Griffie and Dennis Griffie, children of his daughter.4 The will and codicil admitted to probate following Decedent's death were dated January 29, 1990, and April 17, 1990, respectively.5 The will gave Decedent's motor vehicle(s) to his Complaint, Kuhn v. Kuhn, No. 34 Equity 1991. Audrey L. Kuhn is now Audrey L. Kuhn Fealtman. To the extent that other persons may have survived Decedent, they are not relevant for present purposes. ~ Plaintiffs' Exhibits 6, 7. 2 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 21-90-870 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 34 Equity 1991 daughter, his residence and its contents to his daughter and grandson David, an adjacent lot to his daughter, son Richard and grandson David, and the residue of his estate to his daughter and grandson David.6 The will expressly omitted as a beneficiary his son Ronald.7 The codicil provided that two cabin lots in Dickinson Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which had not been specifically mentioned in the will, be sold and the proceeds divided between his daughter and his son Richard.8 The executor named in the will was a local bank.9 The will and codicil were a disappointment to Decedent's sons. In 1989, Decedent had told his son Ronald that he would be receiving the two cabin lots in Dickinson Township. Decedent's son Richard had expected to receive, at least, full ownership of the 6 Plaintiff's Exhibit 6. ? "I have made no provision in this Will for my son, Ronald F. Kuhn, not out of any lack of affection for him but because I have already provided well for him during my lifetime." Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6, paragraph 8. 8 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7. 9 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6, paragraph 9. Reference was made in the testimony at the hearing/trial herein to a 1964 will draft which was apparently more favorable to Decedent's sons than the 1990 will and codicil; however, it was not known whether the earlier will had ever been executed. 3 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 21-90-870 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 34 Equity 1991 lot next to Decedent's residence.~° In 1987, Decedent suffered a stroke, which resulted in his right side's being slightly weaker than his left. In 1989, while driving on Route 81 in Cumberland County, Decedent missed an exit, became disoriented, and was eventually located in Tennessee. In general, however, Decedent functioned satisfactorily, notwithstanding the cerebral accident. In 1990, before his death, Decedent executed the will (January 29, 1990)~ and codicil (April 17, 1990),~2 sold one of the cabin lots to his grandsons for two thousand dollars (June 6, 1990),~3 and bought a 1987 Chevrolet motor home, placing title jointly in his and his daughter's names (October, 1990).TM During that year, which was his last, Decedent's relationship was closest with his daughter, next closest with his son Richard, and least close with ~0 This lot also adjoined the residence of the son, Richard. The land that Richard lived on had been given to him by his father, and the lot was between their two properties. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8. Testimony at the hearing/trial indicated that the consideration paid was two thousand dollars, notwithstanding a deed recital of one dollar. ~4 Plaintiffs' Complaint, paragraph 58; Defendants' Answer, paragraph 58; No. 34 Equity 1991. 4 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 21-90-870 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 34 Equity 1991 his son Ronald. None of his children was given a power of attorney by Decedent. The will and codicil were executed in the presence of their scrivener, Roger M. Morgenthal, Esq., of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who had prepared them in accordance with Decedent's wishes and who perceived no weakness of intellect on the part of the testator. The deed was likewise executed in the presence of its scrivener, Mr. Morgenthal, and had been prepared in accordance with the Decedent's wishes. The mobile home was purchased against the advice of Decedent's daughter and placed in joint names for purposes of tax reduction. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing/trial, the Court finds that Decedent has not been shown to have been of weakened intellect or to have been involved in a confidential relationship with his daughter and/or grandsons. The Court further finds that the proponents of the challenged will, codicil and inter vivos transfers have affirmatively demonstrated that these instruments and acts were the result of voluntary and knowing choices on the part of Decedent, free of undue influence. DISCUSSION With respect to a challenge to the validity of a will, "[t]he burden of proving undue influence is on the contestant since a 5 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 21-90-870 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 34 Equity 1991 presumption of validity arises once a will is probated." In re Estate of Simpson, 407 Pa. Super. 1, 8, 595 A.2d 94, 98 (1991). To meet this burden, contestants must establish by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the testator was of weakened intellect when the will was executed; (2) there was a person in a confidential relationship with the testator; and (3) the person in the relationship receives a substantial benefit under the will. It is only after all three elements are satisfied that the burden shifts to the proponent of the will to show the absence of undue influence. Id. at 9, 595 A.2d at 98. With respect to a challenge to the validity of an inter vivos gift, "[t]he burden is initially on the party seeking to set aside a transaction to prove that a confidential relationship existed between the parties." Hera v. McCormick, 425 Pa. Super. 432, 447, 625 A.2d 682, 690 (1993). "If it is established that a confidential relationship existed at the time the alleged gift was made, the burden shifts to the donee to show that the alleged gift was free of any taint of undue influence .... " Id. "A confidential relationship exists where the circumstances 'make it certain that the parties did not deal on equal terms; where, on the one side there is an overmastering influence, or on the other, weakness, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed.'" Id., quoting Wier v. Ciao, 521 Pa. 491, 504, 556 A.2d 819, 825 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 21-90-870 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 34 Equity 1991 (1989). The mere fact that parties to a transaction are parent and child does not mean that a "confidential relationship" exists. Walsh v. Bucalo, 423 Pa. Super. 25, 620 A.2d 21 (1993). "[T]he existence of a close family relationship per se does not justify recognition of a confidential relationship .... " Truver v. Kennedy, 425 Pa. 294, 306, 229 A.2d 468, 474 (1967). In the present matter, the Court has found that the contestants have not met their burden of proof as described above, and that, if they have, the proponents of the will, codicil and inter vivos transfers have successfully met theirs in response. For these reasons, the following Decree Nisi will be entered: DECREE NISI AND NOW, this day of February, 1995, after careful consideration of Petitioner-Appellants' Appeal from Probate at No. 21-90-870 Orphans' Court Division, and Plaintiffs' Complaint at No. 34 Equity 1991, and following a consolidated hearing/trial, the Court finds that the actions of Decedent Fred D. Kuhn challenged herein were not the product of undue influence. ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner-Appellants, and dismisses the appeal, at No. 21- 90-870 Orphans' Court Division, and in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs, and dismisses the complaint, at No. 34 Equity 7 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 21-90-870 KUHN V. KUHN NO. 34 Equity 1991 1991. THIS Decree shall become a Final Decree unless a post-trial motion is filed within ten days pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. P. Richard Wagner, Esq. 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Petitioners/ Appellants/Plaintiffs Stephen L. Bloom, Esq. Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Respondents/ Defendants :rc 8