Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-111 orphansIN RE: ESTATE OF IRENE W. ROTH Deceased, Late of the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION No. 21-80-111 OPINION AND ORDER IN RE: ESTATE OF IRENE W. ROTH OBJECTIONS TO THE TRUSTEE'S PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION Before the Court are the separate objections of Russell Shank, Jr., and Robert A. Aust, W. Clark Line, II, Paula J. Line, Pamela R. Mones, Richard J. Line, and Jaynan Temarantz, to the Trustee's proposed statement of distribution of the remainder of the Testamentary Trust of Irene W. Roth. The beneficiaries James H. Shank and John M. Shank support the Trustee's proposed distribution. This opinion deals with these objections and distributes the remainder of the trust accordingly. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Irene W. Roth (hereinafter "Testatrix") executed her will on August 1, 1969. The will left the remainder of her estate to her husband, George E. Roth, if he survived her. If her husband did not survive her, Testatrix directed that the remainder of her estate be paid into a testamentary trust to be administered by M & T Bank. The income from the trust was to be paid to Betty June Goodwin (hereinafter "Goodwin"), the daughter of Testatrix, for the remainder of her life. At Goodwin's death, the remaining principle and income from the trust was to be paid to four named beneficiaries: George W. Waugaman, the Testatrix's brother; Clara Shank, the Testatrix's sister; and to Bertha R. Line and Barbara R. Baker, the Testatrix's sisters-in-law (sisters of George E. Roth). Testatrix executed a codicil to her will on August 15, 1969 which added the following language: If George Waugaman or Clara Shank or Bertha Line or Barbara Baker dies before Betty June Goodwin I give the share he or she would have taken to his or her children, if any. Testatrix died on February 10, 1980 at which time her estate was paid into a trust with the income to be paid to Goodwin for life. Betty June Goodwin died on December 21, 1999 and $887,503.76 remained in the trust to be distributed according to the testamentary scheme in Testatrix's will. At the time of Goodwin's death, the four beneficiaries named in Testatrix's will were deceased. Barbara Baker had no children. George Waugaman is survived by four children. Clara Shank had two sons, Russell Shank, Jr. and James H. Shank. Russell Shank, Jr. is an objector in the present suit. James H. Shank predeceased Goodwin and is survived by James H. Shank, Jr. and John M. Shank. Bertha R. Line had three children: Jacqueline Line Aust; Donald J. Line; and W. Clark Line. Donald J. Line had no children. Jacqueline Line Aust is survived by one child, Robert A. Aust, Jr.. W. Clark Line is survived by five children: W. Clark Line, II; Paula J. Line; Pamela R. Mones; Richard J. Line; Jaynan Temarantz (hereinafter "Robert A. Aust, et.al."). The Trustee proposes to distribute the remainder of the trust as follows: 1/8 each to the children of George Waugaman; 1/4 to Russell Shank, Jr. and 1/8 each to James H. Shank, Jr. and John M. Shank, the children of James H. Shank. The Trustee proposes no distribution to Robert A. Aust, Jr., W. Clark Line, II, Paula J. Line, Pamela R. Mones, Richard J. Line, and Jaynan Tamarantz, the grandchildren of Bertha R. Line. This proposed scheme is based on the assumption that the anti-lapse provision of 20 Pa.C.S. §2514(9)1 operates to save, for James H. Shank's children, the share to which he would have taken as a member of the class, "children, if any," had he survived Goodwin. No distribution is proposed to Robert A. Aust, Jr., et. al. because they do not have the requisite blood relationship to Testatrix required by §2514(9). Russell Shank, Jr., and Robert A. Aust, Jr., et al., have filed objections. Russell Shank, Jr. objects to the Trustee's proposed distribution. He contends that the testamentary gifts to "children, if any" of deceased legatees does not extend to the grandchildren of those deceased legatees. Russell Shank's objection is to the proposed distribution of 1/8 each to James H. Shank, Jr. and John M. Shank. The explicit language of §2514(9) states that a gift will be saved 1 See, 20 Pa.C.S. §2514(9): Lapsed and void devises and legacies; substitution of issue. A devise or bequest to a child or other issue of the testator or to his brother or sister or to a child of his brother or sister whether designated by name or as one of a class shall not lapse if the beneficiary shall fail to survive the testator and shall leave issue surviving the testator but shall pass to such surviving issue who shall take per stirpes the share which their deceased ancestor would have taken had he survived the testator: Provided, That such a devise or bequest to a brother or sister or to the child of a brother or sister shall lapse to the extent to which it will pass to the testator's spouse or issue as a part of the residuary estate or under the intestate laws. "if the beneficiary shall fail to survive the testator." He argues that the 1/4 share to James H. Shank lapsed because he predeceased Goodwin and that §2514(9) is not applicable because James H. Shank survived the Testatrix. Robert A. Aust, Jr., et. al. object to the Trustee's proposed distribution. They assert that, collectively, they are entitled to a 1/3 share of the remainder of the trust because Testatrix created four separate class gifts to the children, if any of the four named beneficiaries. Therefore, they propose that the testamentary trust should be divided as follows: · 1/3 to be divided equally between Louise Waugaman Goodhart (1/12), George W. Waugaman (1/12), Barbara Waugaman Horn (1/12), Larry R. Waugaman (1/12); · 1/3 to be divided between Robert A. Aust, Jr. (1/6), W. Clark Line, II (1/30), Paula J. Line (1/30), Pamela R. Mones (1/30), Richard J. Line (1/30), and Jaynan Tamarantz (1/30); and · 1/3 to be divided between Russell Shank, Jr. (1/6), James H. Shank, Jr. (1/12) and John M. Shank (1/12). They argue that 20 Pa.C.S. §2514(5)2 contains an anti-lapse provision that operates to save gifts for the issue of members of a class who are deceased 2 See, 20 Pa.C.S. §2514(5): Time for ascertaining class. In construing a devise or bequest to a class other than a class described in section 2514(4), the class shall be ascertained at the time the devise or bequest is to take effect in enjoyment, except that the issue then living of any member of the when their gift takes effect in enjoyment. Section 2514(5) does not contain any language requiring the class members to be blood relations of the testator. Therefore, they argue, [}2514(5) saves the bequests to their parents as members of the class of "children, if any." DISCUSSION "It is a cardinal rule that a will is to be construed according to the intent of the testator." Estate of Sellers, 344 Pa. Super. 538,541,496 A.2d 1237, 1238 (1985) (citing Hamilton Estate, 454 Pa. 495, 312 A.2d 373, 374 (1973)). To determine the Testatrix's intent "a court examines the words of the instrument and, if necessary, the scheme of distribution, the circumstances surrounding the will and other facts bearing on the question." Estate of Apple.qate, 479 Pa. 300, 304, 388 A.2d 666, 668 (1978); citing Estate of Sykes, 477 Pa 254, 383 A.2d 920 (1978). The testatrix's intent "must appear with reasonable certainty, such that there can be little doubt of intent." Id. Further, where a will is not ambiguous or contradictory, extrinsic or parol evidence ordinarily is not admissible to vary, contradict, or add to the terms of the will or to show a different intention on the part of the testator than that disclosed by the language of the will. See Estate of Schwenk, 507 Pa. 409, 415, 490 A.2d 428,430-31 (1985). class who is then dead shall take per stirpes the share which their deceased ancestor would have taken if he had then been living. 1. Testatrix's Intent Here, the intent of Testatrix is "sufficiently clear and unambiguous so as to lead the court to believe it can with reasonable certainty effect a distribution in accordance with the [Testatrix's] desires." Estate of Schwenk, 570 Pa. at 415, 490 A.2d at 431 (citing Jacobsen Estate, 460 Pa. 118, 122-23, 331 A.2d 447, 449 (1975)). The admission of extrinsic or parol evidence is not necessary. It is clear that Testatrix intended to leave the remainder of her estate to her siblings and the siblings of her husband, or, in the alternative, to the children of those persons. Finally, it is clear that Testatrix, in leaving the remainder of the trust to the four named beneficiaries or their "children, if any," did not impose a requirement that those children must be living at the time their gift takes effect in enjoyment. The Testatrix demonstrated that, if survivorship was a condition to taking under her will, she would have explicitly so stated. See, e.g. In re Patrick's Estate, 409 A.2d 388,390 (1979)(stating that if the testator meant survival to be a condition precedent to taking under his will, the testator could have explicitly added the language "if living"). This is exemplified by the bequest of her estate to her husband, if he survived her. Similar language is not found anywhere else within Testatrix's will or the codicil. 2. It is Necessary to Apply the Rules of Construction Provided by §2514. Although Testatrix does not explicitly impose a requirement of survivorship, her intent as to the distribution of the shares of the deceased beneficiaries is not fully spelled out. When the testatrix's intent is not clearly stated within the four corners of a will, the Pennsylvania Legislature has enacted a series of rules of construction to aide courts in determining the intent of a testatrix. See, 20 Pa.C.S. §2514. The statute provides that the wills shall be construed in accordance with these rules "[i]n the absence of a contrary intent appearing therein." Id. Therefore, because the intent of the Testatrix is not clear as to how the shares of the "children, if any" who predeceased Goodwin should be distributed, the Court must resort to the rules of construction set forth in §2514. After considering Testatrix's intent as expressed in her will, her testamentary scheme, and application of the rules of construction in §2514, the court rejects the schemes of distribution of the remainder of the trust proposed by the Trustee and Russell Shank, Jr.. The Trustee's proposed distribution is rejected because it does not include distributions to Robert A. Aust, Jr., et. al. Jacqueline Line Aust and W. Clark Line were members of the class of "children, if any," of Bertha R. Line. Russell Shank, Jr.'s proposed distribution is rejected because it does not include distributions to James H. Shank, Jr. and John M. Shank or to Robert A. Aust, Jr., et. al. James H. Shank was a member of the class of "children, if any" of Clara Shank. Therefore, because Testatrix's gift to the "children, if any" of the four named beneficiaries was a gift to a class of persons, §2514(5) operates to save those gifts for the issue of the deceased class member. 3. The Bequest to the "Children, If Any" in Testatrix's Will is a Gift to a Class of Persons, Not a Gift to Individuals. A gift to a class has been defined as a "gift of an aggregate sum to a body of persons uncertain in number at the time of the gift, to be ascertained at a future time, who are all to take in equal or other definite proportions, the share of each being dependant upon the ultimate number." In re Estate of Clarke, 460 Pa. 41,331 A.2d 408 (1975). "In general, courts have held that designation of beneficiaries by a class description only, such as 'grandchildren,' strongly reveals the testator's group-mindedness. Id. at 411. The number of members in the class is determined at the time of distribution. Id. at 410. Prior to the enactment of [}2514(5), the rule was that if a class member was deceased at the time of distribution, his share lapsed and, absent a contrary intent in the will, increased the shares of the other class members. See Lehman Estate, 16 Pa. D.&.C3d 481,490 (1980). The legislature, however, has enacted [}2514(5) which states that, absent a contrary intent in the will, even though a class member is deceased at the time his gift is to take effect in enjoyment, his gift is saved and passes to the issue of the deceased class member per stirpes. 20 Pa. C.S. [}2514(5); see, e.,q., Lehman, 16 Pa. D. & C.3d 481 (stating that, if [}2514(5) could be retroactively applied to the proposed distribution of the remainder of testator's trust, the shares of the deceased class members would have been saved and passed to their issue per stirpes); see also, In re Estate of Sellers, 344 Pa. Super. 538,544; 496 A.2d 1237, 1240 (1985)(stating that [}2514(5) is a "restatement of the anti-lapse provision and its operation.") In the present case, Testatrix made a gift of the remainder of her testamentary trust to four named individuals. In the alternative, Testatrix's will directed that if one of the specifically named beneficiaries was deceased, his or her share was to pass to his or her children. In her will, Testatrix identified the alternate beneficiaries by the class designation "children." When a Testatrix designates beneficiaries by a class description only, a presumption of Testatrix's group-mindedness exists. See In re Clark's Estate, 331 A.2d at 411. Therefore, a presumption exists that Testatrix's gift to "children, if any" of the four named beneficiaries, was a gift to a class, that class consisting of the children of the deceased named beneficiary. Barbara R. Baker, unlike the other named beneficiaries, was not survived by children. Because she did not leave any children, the remainder of the trust will be divided between the children of the George Waugaman, Clara Shank and Bertha R. Line. The children of each named beneficiary will divide equally the share to which their parent was entitled. The share of any child deceased at the time the gift took effect in enjoyment is saved by [}2514(5) and passes to the issue of that child, per stripes. George Waugaman, Clara Shank and Bertha Line were each entitled to a 1/3 share of the remainder of the testamentary trust and the 1/3 share should be divided equally to the children of that beneficiary. Therefore, the remainder of the testamentary of Irene W. Roth should be divided as follows: · 1/12 each to Louise Waugaman Goodhart, George W. Waugaman, Barbara Waugaman Horn, and Larry R. Waugaman. · 1/6 to Russell Shank, Jr. · 1/12 each to James H. Shank and John M. Shank. · 1/6 to Robert A. Aust, Jr. · 1/30 each to W. Clark Line, II, Paula J. Line, Pamela R. Mones, Richard J. Line, and Jaynan Tamarantz. l0 IN RE: ESTATE OF IRENE W. ROTH Deceased, Late of the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION No. 21-80-111 ORDER HOFFER, P.J.: and in accordance with this opinion, as follows: AND NOW, July 19, 2002, after careful consideration of all issues raised, the trust of Irene Roth shall be distributed · 1/12 each to Louise Waugaman Goodhart, George W. Waugaman, Barbara Waugaman Horn, and Larry R. Waugaman. · 1/6 to Russell Shank, Jr. · 1/12 each to James H. Shank and John M. Shank. · 1/6 to Robert A. Aust, Jr. · 1/30 each to W. Clark Line, II, Paula J. Line, Pamela R. Mones, Richard J. Line, and Jaynan Tamarantz. By the Court, George E. Hoffer, P,J, ]] James D. Hughes, Esquire Irwin, McKnight & Hughes 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Trustee Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Broujos & Gilroy 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for John and James Shank Wayne F. Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Russell Shank Jr. Michael A. Scherer, Esquire 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Robert A. Aust