J-A13037-16

2016 PA Super 184

SHARLEEN M. RELLICK-SMITH, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

BETTY J. RELLICK AND KIMBERLY V. 

VASIL

:

: No. 1105 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Order entered June 22, 2015

in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County,

Orphans' Court at No. 32-14-0490

BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE and MUSMANNO, JJ.

OPINION BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 22, 2016

Sharleen M. Rellick-Smith (“Rellick-Smith”) appeals from the Order 

granting the “Motion to Dismiss” filed by Betty J. Rellick (“Rellick”) and 

Kimberly V. Vasil (“Vasil”). We vacate the Order and remand for further 

proceedings.

Rellick-Smith commenced this action by filing a Complaint in Orphans’ 

Court1against Rellick and Vasil (sometimes collectively referred to as “the 

Defendants”) on October 14, 2014. All parties to the instant case are 

relatives of Rose M. Rellick (hereinafter “the decedent”),2 who died on 

December 20, 2012.3 In March 2006, Rellick and Vasil executed documents 

 

1 Though a case in Orphans’ Court is commenced by filing a petition, rather 

than a complaint, see 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 761, we, like the Orphans’ Court, will 

overlook this minor defect.

2 Vasil and Rellick-Smith are nieces of the decedent. Rellick is the 

decedent’s sister. Complaint, 10/14/14, at ¶¶ 4, 5.

3 The record does not reveal whether the decedent died with a will, or the 

identity of the personal representative of her estate.
J-A13037-16

- 2 -

giving them power of attorney (“POA”) concerning the decedent’s affairs. 

Complaint, 10/14/14, at ¶ 6; see also id., Exhibit A. In August 2006, the 

decedent created two certificate of deposit accounts (collectively “the CDs”) 

at First Commonwealth Bank (“First Commonwealth”). Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8.4 

According to Rellick-Smith, the decedent created these accounts “for the 

purpose of estate planning” for “her intended beneficiaries.” Id. at ¶ 7. 

Both of the CDs were created in the names of the decedent, Rellick-Smith, 

Rellick, and Vasil. Id. at ¶ 9; see also id., Exhibits B and C.5

On July 31, 2009, Rellick and Vasil, using their authority as the 

decedent’s agents under the POA, both executed a First Commonwealth form 

to remove Rellick-Smith’s name from the CDs. Id. at ¶ 10; see also id. 

 

4 At the time of their creation, the two CDs were valued at $144,678.11 and 

$152,043.90, respectively. Complaint, 10/14/14, Exhibits B and C. 

5 Notably, the funds in the CDs were held “in trust for” Rellick-Smith, Rellick, 

and Vasil. One who deposits money in a savings account in her own name in 

trust for another establishes a “Totten trust.” In re Estate of McFetridge, 

372 A.2d 823, 825 (Pa. 1977). The name is derived from In re Totten, 179 

N.Y. 112, 71 N.E. 748 (N.Y. 1904), the New York Court of Appeals decision 

widely credited with first conceiving the notion of a “tentative” trust. “A 

Totten trust allows the depositor to retain complete control of the fund 

during his life and yet secure to the beneficiary any balance standing in the 

account at the death of the depositor.” Estate of McFetridge, 372 A.2d at 

825 (citation, quotation marks, and ellipses omitted). “Totten Trusts [] are 

essentially a ‘poor man’s will,’ a judicial creation that[,] strictly speaking[,] is 

neither a will nor a trust but are fairly obviously testamentary transfers.” In 

re Estate of Rood, 121 A.3d 1104, 1108-09 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation, 

brackets and some internal quotation marks omitted).
J-A13037-16

- 3 -

Exhibit D.6 Rellick-Smith was not informed that her name had been 

removed from the CDs. Id. at ¶ 12. 

Rellick-Smith contends that, sometime in March 2013 (approximately 

three months after the decedent’s death), Rellick and Vasil withdrew all of 

the money in the CDs,7and divided it evenly among themselves. Id. at 

¶¶ 15, 17. Rellick-Smith received no money from the CDs. Id. at ¶ 16. 

According to Rellick-Smith, “[i]t was the intention of [the decedent] for the 

money in these two CDs to be divided evenly” between Rellick-Smith, 

Rellick, and Vasil. Id. at ¶ 18. Rellick-Smith argues that because Rellick 

and Vasil abused their authority as agents under the POA agreement in 

unilaterally removing Rellick-Smith’s name from the CDs, Rellick-Smith is 

entitled to one-third of the suspected value of the CDs at the time the

 

6 The Complaint alleges that Rellick also signed the form in the decedent’s 

name. Complaint, 10/14/14, Exhibit D. None of the parties allege that the 

decedent was present at the time of signing, or specifically authorized the 

change of beneficiaries.

7 Rellick-Smith states that although she is not certain of the exact value of 

the CDs at that time, she believed them to be worth $400,000.00 combined. 

Complaint, 10/14/14, at ¶ 15.
J-A13037-16

- 4 -

accounts were cashed ($133,000.00, plus interest). Id. at ¶¶ 19, 20, 23.8

Approximately two weeks after the filing of the Complaint, the 

Defendants filed an Answer. On February 11, 2015, the Defendants filed the 

“Motion to Dismiss,” asserting that Rellick-Smith lacked standing to sue and, 

in the alternative, the action was barred by the applicable statute of

 

8 Nowhere in Rellick-Smith’s three-page Complaint does she specifically 

identify any cause of action. Rather, the Complaint alleges only as follows: 

“[Rellick-Smith] believes that the Defendants violated Pennsylvania laws by 

using their authority as agents of [the decedent] for their own financial gain 

through the removal of [Rellick-Smith’s] name from the ... CDs.” Complaint, 

10/10/14, at ¶ 19. However, “[u]nder Pennsylvania’s fact pleading system, 

the complainant need only state the material facts upon which a cause of 

action is based. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). The duty to discover the cause or 

causes of action rests with the trial court.” Grossman v. Barke, 868 A.2d 

561, 569 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted); see also id. at 568-69 

(stating that “[e]ven though [the plaintiff] did not separate his factual 

allegations into separate counts specifying the legal theories underlying the 

complaint, the trial court was obligated to consider what causes of action

were supported by the facts alleged.”). Here, Rellick-Smith’s Complaint, 

though terse, stated sufficient material facts upon which a cause of action 

could be based. See id. at 569. Rellick-Smith’s above-mentioned assertion 

facially alleges a breach of fiduciary duty. See, e.g., In re Estate of 

Bechtel, 92 A.3d 833, 839 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing breach of fiduciary 

duty in the context of an allegation of abuse of authority by an agent under 

a POA). Moreover, Vasil and Rellick did not object to the Complaint as being 

procedurally defective. See Bartanus v. Lis, 480 A.2d 1178, 1182 (Pa. 

Super. 1984) (holding that the defendants waived their claim that the 

plaintiff failed to properly divide complaint into separate counts for each 

cause of action asserted, where defendants did not challenge form of 

complaint in their preliminary objections). 
J-A13037-16

- 5 -

limitations.9 The Defendants argued that the only persons who had standing 

to challenge an agent’s actions under the POA agreement were the decedent 

(principal) prior to her death, or, thereafter, the personal representative of 

the decedent’s estate.10 Rellick-Smith filed a Response to the Motion to 

Dismiss. The Orphans’ Court heard argument on the matter on May 12, 

2015.11 By an Order entered on June 22, 2015, the Orphans’ Court granted 

the Motion to Dismiss and issued an Opinion in connection with the Order, 

 

9 The Motion to Dismiss was essentially in the form of a preliminary 

objection; we will treat it as such. See Pa.R.O.C. 3.9(b)(5) (stating that 

lack of standing can be raised by preliminary objection).

10 The Defendants also pointed to a previous decision of the Indiana County 

Court of Common Pleas in a case in the civil division involving essentially the 

same parties (hereinafter “the civil case”). Vasil and Rellick initiated the civil 

case, prior to the filing of the Complaint in the instant case, against RellickSmith and Annabell Marcoaldi (“Marcoaldi”), who had served as the 

decedent’s accountant. In the civil case, the trial court ruled that Vasil 

lacked standing to sue where the decedent, prior to her death, personally 

excluded Vasil as a beneficiary under a separate certificate of deposit 

account, observing that Pennsylvania law does not provide grounds for 

recovery on the basis of inter vivos transfers alleged to diminish an eventual 

bequest. See Trial Court Opinion and Order (No. 11283 CD 2014), 5/18/15, 

at 7-9. Vasil appealed the ruling in the civil case, and the appeal is listed 

before this panel at 884 WDA 2015. Moreover, in their Answer filed in the 

instant case, the Defendants stated that “[Rellick-Smith’s] name was 

removed[, i.e., as a beneficiary under the CDs,] because she had acted 

inappropriately with respect to other [certificate of deposit] accounts [of the 

decedent,] as set forth in the [civil case] ....” Answer, 10/22/14, at 2 

(unnumbered).

11 The notes of testimony from this hearing are not contained in the certified 

record. Accordingly, we asked our prothonotary to contact the trial court’s 

prothonotary to obtain the transcript. The trial court prothonotary 

responded that no transcript exists, as the hearing was apparently not 

transcribed.
J-A13037-16

- 6 -

ruling that Rellick-Smith lacked standing to sue. In response, Rellick-Smith 

timely filed a Notice of Appeal.

Rellick-Smith presents a single issue for our review: “Whether the 

[Orphans’] Court erred by determining that [Rellick-Smith] did not have 

standing[?]” Brief for Appellant at 7.12

In determining whether the Orphans’ Court properly granted the 

Defendants’ preliminary objections (i.e., the Motion to Dismiss), we review 

the ruling for an error of law or abuse of discretion. In re B.L.J., Jr., 938 

A.2d 1068, 1071 (Pa. Super. 2007). “On an appeal from an order sustaining 

preliminary objections, we accept as true all well-pleaded material facts set 

forth in the appellant’s complaint and all reasonable inferences which may 

be drawn from those facts.” Estate of Gentry v. Diamond Rock Hill 

Realty, LLC, 111 A.3d 194, 198 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and brackets 

omitted). Preliminary objections seeking the dismissal of a cause of action 

should be sustained only in cases in which it is clear and free from doubt 

that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish 

the right to relief; if any doubt exists, it should be resolved in favor of 

overruling the objections. Id. 

“Threshold issues of standing are questions of law; thus, our standard

of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Johnson v. Am. 

Std., 8 A.3d 318, 326 (Pa. 2010). 

 

12 Neither party addresses on appeal the statute of limitations issue raised in 

the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
J-A13037-16

- 7 -

In Pennsylvania, the doctrine of standing ... is a prudential, 

judicially created principle designed to winnow out litigants who 

have no direct interest in a judicial matter. In re Hickson, 573 

Pa. 127, 821 A.2d 1238, 1243, (Pa. 2003)[; see also id. 

(stating that “[o]ur [] standing doctrine is not a senseless 

restriction on the utilization of judicial resources ....”)]. For 

standing to exist, the underlying controversy must be real and 

concrete, such that the party initiating the legal action has, in 

fact, been “aggrieved.” ... [T]he core concept of standing is that 

a person who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter 

he seeks to challenge is not “aggrieved” thereby and has no 

standing to obtain a judicial resolution to his challenge. A party 

is aggrieved for purposes of establishing standing when the 

party has a substantial, direct and immediate interest in the 

outcome of litigation. A party’s interest is substantial when it 

surpasses the interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to 

the law; it is direct when the asserted violation shares a causal 

connection with the alleged harm; finally, a party’s interest is 

immediate when the causal connection with the alleged harm is 

neither remote nor speculative.

Office of Governor v. Donahue, 98 A.3d 1223, 1229 (Pa. 2014) 

(quotation marks, brackets, and some citations omitted). 

Rellick-Smith argues that the Orphans’ Court committed an error of 

law in ruling that she lacked standing to sue the Defendants, and that only 

the decedent or her estate have standing to pursue an action against the 

Defendants for changing the beneficiaries of the CDs. See Brief for 

Appellant at 11-14.

The Orphans’ Court offered the following reasoning in its Opinion for 

its ruling:

Courts in this Commonwealth have held that when a principal 

has passed away, it is his/her estate, through a personal 

representative[,] who is [the] only party with standing to 

challenge the agent’s actions.
J-A13037-16

- 8 -

To this may be added that orderly procedure requires a 

strict adherence to the rule for only the personal 

representative of a deceased party in interest stands in 

the shoes of such decedent. Legatees, spouses or next 

of kin of that decedent really have no such interest[,] as 

Section 48 of the Fiduciaries Act of 1917 (20 PS ch. 3, 

app. 843) requires until[,] by an accounting[,] it is 

shown that all creditors or those having a prior claim 

have been satisfied and the distributees’ rights fixed. 

To hold otherwise would impose on the court a 

preliminary or collateral inquiry as to whether the 

petitioner has[,] in fact[,] a possible interest as 

distributee that would be enlarged by any additional 

sum brought into the other estate by successful 

maintenance of the review. 

In re Kilpatrick Estate, 84 A.2d 339, 341 (Pa. [] 1951) 

[(emphasis in original).]

Kilpatrick further elucidated the definition of “party in interest” 

within this very context. 

We do not agree with the argument of the learned 

counsel for the appellant that we should apply[,] to the 

phrase “by any party interested therein” in Section 48 

of the Fiduciaries Act of 1917[,] the same definition as 

that contained in Section 17 of the Orphans’ Court Act 

of 1917 (20 P.S. 2331)[,] which reads, “On petition to 

the court of any person interested, whether such 

interest be immediate or remote.” An all[-]sufficient 

reason is that these two acts, though in pari materia, 

are providing for different things. Section 17 of the 

Orphans’ Court Act, set forth at the beginning of that 

section immediately preceding the above quoted 

portion, provides for “the manner of proceeding in the 

orphans’ court to obtain the appearance of a person 

amenable to its jurisdiction, and the procedure in 

default of appearance.” Obviously a totally different 

matter from a review under Section 48 of the 

Fiduciaries’ Act of an accounting already in the court. 

Had the legislature meant in the latter proceeding to 

permit anyone having a remote interest therein to have 

this special right, it would no doubt have said so.
J-A13037-16

- 9 -

[Kilpatrick, 84 A.2d at 341].

Rellick-Smith has not pled that she is the personal 

representative of the [decedent’s] estate, which would allow 

[Rellick-Smith] to request an accounting and audit of the 

agent’s[, i.e., Rellick and Vasil,] use of [their] authority under 

the [POA agreement]. Therefore, ... Rellick-Smith does not have 

standing to contest the actions of [the Defendants], acting in 

[their] capacity as [the decedent’s] agent[s].” 

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/22/15, at 4-5.13

In response to the Orphans’ Court’s above reasoning, Rellick-Smith 

argues as follows:

To apply the ruling of Kilpatrick to the present facts would set a 

dangerous precedent. Here, [the decedent] specifically set aside 

the money in question from her estate. It was her plan[,] while 

working with her accountant[, Marcoaldi,] to have the money for 

[Rellick-Smith] and [the Defendants] in the CDs. The whole 

intention of the creation of the CDs was to avoid the money 

going into the estate. It therefore does not make any sense to 

suggest[,] as the [Orphans’] Court has in this case[,] that the 

only challenge to the actions of the agents must come from the 

personal representative of the [decedent’s] estate.

Brief for Appellant at 13-14; see also id. at 13 (arguing that Kilpatrick

“involved a request of an account of an estate fourteen years after the 

individual had died, and shares very little[,] if anything[,] in common with 

the present case.”).

 

13 In so ruling, the Orphans’ Court appears to have relied upon 20 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 3373 (governing actions by or against personal representative), which 

provides that “[a]n action or proceeding to enforce any right or liability 

which survives a decedent may be brought by or against his personal 

representative alone or with other parties as though the decedent were 

alive.”
J-A13037-16

- 10 -

The issue presented by Rellick-Smith is one of first impression in 

Pennsylvania. However, we are guided by the following persuasive 

authority. Section 58 of The Restatement (Second) of Trusts provides as 

follows:

Where a person makes a deposit in a savings account in a bank 

or other savings organization in his own name as trustee for 

another person[,] intending to reserve a power to withdraw the 

whole or any part of the deposit at any time during his lifetime 

and to use as his own whatever he may withdraw, or otherwise 

to revoke the trust, the intended trust is enforceable by the 

beneficiary upon the death of the depositor as to any part 

remaining on deposit on his death if he has not revoked the 

trust.

RESTATEMENT OF TRUSTS (SECOND), § 58 (emphasis added); see also Estate of 

McFetridge, 372 A.2d at 825 (relying upon section 58 and explaining Totten 

trusts).

Moreover, the treatise, Scott on Trusts, lends additional persuasive 

support for beneficiary standing, providing as follows concerning Totten trust 

accounts:

Where a third person wrongfully withdraws money from the 

account before the death of the depositor and without his 

consent, the beneficiary can, after the death of the depositor 

maintain a suit against him for the money so withdrawn. The 

beneficiary had a sufficient interest during the life of the 

depositor to entitle him to recover the money after the death of 

the depositor where the trust was not revoked by the depositor.

Scott, Trusts (4th Ed. 1987) § 58.4, p. 224; see also Silk v. Silk, 295 

N.Y.S. 517, 520 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937) (holding that a Totten trust beneficiary 

has standing to sue for injury to his/her tentative property interest in the 
J-A13037-16

- 11 -

funds held in the trust account after the death of the trust creator, where 

funds have been withdrawn during the creator’s life, without consent or 

approval); In re Guardianship of Medley, 573 So. 2d 892, 907 (Fla. Dist. 

Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1990) (holding that Totten trust beneficiaries had standing 

to sue the bank/guardian that held the trust account funds following the 

death of the account co-owner/co-trustee (“wife”), where (1) the other coowner/co-trustee (“husband”) had unilaterally withdrawn funds from the 

accounts prior to his death, without wife’s knowledge or consent; (2) it was 

the joint intent of wife and husband that the trust would not be revoked by 

such a withdrawal; and (3) husband and wife held the trust funds as tenants 

by the entireties).

In the instant case, accepting as true the allegations in Rellick-Smith’s 

Complaint, the decedent created the CDs as a means for estate planning, 

and intended for the beneficiaries she named to equally share the account 

funds upon her death. The decedent never revoked the CDs nor personally 

changed the named beneficiaries. The Complaint averred that the 

Defendants abused their power, as the decedent’s agents under the POA 

agreement, by changing the beneficiaries of the CDs, without the decedent’s 

authorization. Complaint, 10/10/14, at ¶ 19. Thus, in determining whether 

Rellick-Smith had standing to sue the Defendants directly for breach of 

fiduciary duty as the decedent’s agents, we consider whether the POA 

agreement authorized the Defendants to change the beneficiaries of the 
J-A13037-16

- 12 -

CDs. The POA agreement authorized Rellick and Vasil to, inter alia, (1) 

“engage in banking and financial transactions”; (2) “handle interests in 

estates and trusts”; and (3) “make additions to an existing trust for [the 

decedent’s] benefit.” Complaint, 10/14/14, Exhibit A (POA Agreement), at 

5, 6.

Power of attorney actions are governed by statute, 20 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 5601 et seq. (hereinafter “the POA Act”). The POA Act mandates that, as 

a fiduciary of the principal, an agent must at all times “[e]xercise [her]

powers for the benefit of the principal.” 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5601(e)(1). 

Concerning an agent’s “power to make additions to an existing trust,” the 

POA Act provides, in relevant part, as follows: “The agent and the trust and 

its beneficiaries shall be answerable as equity and justice may require to the 

extent that an addition to a trust is inconsistent with ... the known or 

probable intent of the principal with respect to disposition of his estate.” Id.

§ 5603(c).14 In the instant case, accepting the Complaint’s allegations as 

 

14 On July 2, 2014, the General Assembly passed Act No. 2014-95, which 

amended the POA Act to include section 5601.4 (effective on January 1, 

2015). That section provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n agent under a 

power of attorney may do the following on behalf of the principal or with the 

principal’s property only if the power of attorney expressly grants the agent 

the authority[,] and exercise of the authority is not otherwise prohibited by 

another agreement or instrument to which the authority or property is 

subject: ... Create or change a beneficiary designation.” 20 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 5601.4(a)(4) (emphasis added). However, Act No. 2014-95 provides as 

follows concerning the application of its provisions: “Except as provided by 

this section, the provisions of this act apply to powers of attorney created 

before, on or after the respective effective dates of such provisions, but do 

not apply to the acts or omissions of agents ... that occur before such 
J-A13037-16

- 13 -

true, the decedent’s intent was known, and the Defendants’ actions in 

changing the beneficiaries of the CDs was inconsistent with that intent.

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that Rellick-Smith, as a 

beneficiary of the CDs named by the decedent/principal during her life, had 

standing to challenge the propriety of the Defendants’ unilateral action, as 

agents under the POA agreement, in changing the decedent’s beneficiary 

designation, to the Defendants’ benefit. See, e.g., RESTATEMENT OF TRUSTS 

(SECOND), § 58; Silk, supra. To not afford named beneficiaries of a Totten 

trust standing to sue in circumstances such as those presented in the instant 

case could lead to an absurd and unjust result. Moreover, Rellick-Smith has 

met the above-mentioned requirements for standing discussed in Donahue, 

supra; she is certainly an aggrieved party as she has a substantial, direct 

and immediate interest in the outcome of this litigation. 

In summary, the Orphans’ Court erred in ruling that only the decedent 

or her personal representative had standing to challenge the Defendants’ 

change of the beneficiary designation under the CDs. Accordingly, we 

vacate the Order granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and remand for 

further proceedings.

Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with 

this Opinion. Superior Court jurisdiction relinquished.

 

respective effective dates.” 2014 Pa. Laws 95 (HB 1429), Section 9(1) 

(emphasis added). Therefore, the prior version of the POA Act applies to the 

Defendants’ changing of the beneficiaries under the CDs, which occurred in 

July 2009, long before the effective date of section 5601.4(a)(4).
J-A13037-16

- 14 -

Judge Stabile joins the opinion.

Judge Olson files a dissenting statement.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/22/2016