Case Name: Noreen K. GARNEY, Appellant, v. ESTATE OF Leslie HAIN
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1995-01-20
Citations: 439 Pa. Super. 42
Docket Number: 
Parties: Noreen K. GARNEY, Appellant, v. ESTATE OF Leslie HAIN.
Judges: Before ROWLEY, President Judge, and CIRILLO and DEL SOLE, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 439
Pages: 42–47

Head Matter:
653 A.2d 21
Noreen K. GARNEY, Appellant, v. ESTATE OF Leslie HAIN.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Sept. 13, 1994.
Filed Jan. 20, 1995.
Cara A. Boyanowski, Carlisle, for appellant.
Allen E. Hench, Newport, for appellee.
Before ROWLEY, President Judge, and CIRILLO and DEL SOLE, JJ.

Opinion:
ROWLEY, President Judge:
Appellant Noreen K. Garney appeals from an order dismissing her complaint for support filed against the estate of Leslie Hain, the deceased father of her three children. The sole issue raised for our consideration is whether the estate of a deceased parent, under Pennsylvania law, may be required to provide child support in the absence of a support order or contractual agreement. After careful consideration of the legal issue presented, we affirm the order of the trial court.
The trial court's statement of facts, as stipulated by the parties, is adopted for purposes of our review. Opinion (Oler, J.), filed 1/24/94, at 1-2. We note that the parties were divorced in 1984. Leslie Hain (hereinafter "decedent") remarried in 1985 and died testate in 1992. No court order for child support or contractual agreement to provide support for the decedent's three minor children existed at the time of his death. Appellant argues that in spite of a lack of statutory authority, this Court should impose a duty of support upon the estate as a matter of public policy.
Our standard of review in child support matters is whether the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying or overriding existing law, or exercised its judgment in a way which is manifestly unreasonable, or evidences partiality, bias, or ill-will. Ashbaugh v. Ashbaugh, 426 Pa.Super. 589, 595, 627 A.2d 1210, 1213 (1993). A review of the record in this case discloses no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. The trial court is correct in observing, as appellant concedes, that the legislature has declined to impose a duty of support on the estate of a divorced parent, and there is no case law to be cited in support of such a duty. Further, we agree with the trial court that it is not the role of the judiciary to legislate changes in the law which our legislature has declined to adopt. The decedent disposed of his property as he wished prior to his death and this disposition is not challenged herein; absent legislative authority to do so, we decline to rewrite the decedent's will. In re Agostini's Estate, 311 Pa.Super. 233, 457 A.2d 861 (1983) (testator with children may disinherit one or all; a testator is free to dispose of property as he sees fit).
As we have determined that the trial court correctly applied the law and the record discloses no evidence of partiality, ill-will, or bias, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing appellant's petition for support.
Order affirmed.
DEL SOLE, J., files a dissenting opinion.