Court Opinion

ID: 9915164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 18:07:21.921961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:42.792804
License: Public Domain

J-S35015-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN RE: ESTATE OF GEORGE LELAND               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  BEBOUT A/K/A GEORGE L. BEBOUT,               :        PENNSYLVANIA
  DECEASED                                     :
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: MEGAN BEBOUT                      :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 584 MDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered February 26, 2023
                 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County
                     Orphans' Court at No(s): 77 O.C. 2022

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                           FILED: JANUARY 4, 2024

       Megan Bebout (“Appellant”), daughter of the late George Bebout

(“Bebout”), appeals from the order denying Appellant’s motion for judgment

on the pleadings and granting a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings

filed by Bebout’s estate and his surviving spouse, Angelita V. Acoba (“Acoba”).

The question before us is whether or not an intestate heir may share in the

distribution of a residuary estate, where the decedent’s will did not include a

residuary clause, but specifically limited that heir’s inheritance. After careful

consideration, we affirm.

       Bebout died on June 16, 2021. Prior to his death, Bebout drafted a last

will and testament (“the Will”), in which he made specific bequests to Acoba

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S35015-23

and Appellant. Appellant was born from a previous marriage and is Bebout’s

only child. In the Will, Bebout specifically bequeathed to Acoba “all of my

tangible personal property”. In reference to Appellant, the Will read:

      Section 2. I give and bequeath the sum of FIVE ($5.00) DOLLARS
      to my daughter, Megan Bebout. It is my desire that this is all she
      is to receive from me, for reasons known to me.

Exhibit A, at 1. There is no residuary clause, disposing of the remainder of

Bebout’s estate.

      On September 8, 2022, Acoba filed a petition for construction of the

Will. Acoba asserted that the absence of a residuary clause in the Will was “a

scrivener’s error.” Acoba contended that the only possible way to construe the

Will is that the remainder of Bebout’s property be distributed to Acoba “[i]n

light of the express limitation of the inheritance of [Appellant] to the sum of

Five Dollars ($5.00) and no comparable limitation on the inheritance of

[Acoba]." Petition for Construction of Last Will and Testament and/or

Determination of Rights in Estate, 9/8/2022, at ¶15. In the alternative, Acoba

asserted that if there is a partial intestacy due to the lack of a residual clause,

Acoba would still be entitled to the entire residual estate by operation of law,

due to Bebout’s express disinheritance of Appellant from receiving anything

more than five dollars from his estate. See id. at ¶16.

      On October 4, 2022, Appellant filed an answer, in which she argued she

is entitled to one half of the residuary estate based on the terms of the Will

and application of Pennsylvania’s intestacy laws.

                                       -2-
J-S35015-23

      Appellant then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Subsequently, the Estate and Acoba filed a cross-motion for judgment on the

pleadings. After a hearing, the orphans’ court entered an order in favor of the

Estate and Acoba. This timely appeal followed.

      Our standard of review of an orphans’ court’s decision is deferential:

      When reviewing an orphans' court decree, this Court must
      determine whether the record is free from legal error and whether
      the orphans' court's findings are supported by the record. Because
      the orphans' court sits as the finder of fact, it determines the
      credibility of the witnesses and, on review, this Court will not
      reverse its credibility determinations absent an abuse of
      discretion. However, this Court is not bound to give the same
      deference to the orphans' court conclusions of law. Where the
      rules of law on which the orphans' court relied are palpably wrong
      or clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court's decree.
      Moreover, we point out that an abuse of discretion is not merely
      an error of judgment. However, if in reaching a conclusion, the
      court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised
      is shown by the record to be manifestly unreasonable or the
      product of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, discretion has been
      abused.

In re Estate of Zeevering, 78 A.3d 1106, 1108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations

omitted).

      To begin, we note that an intestate estate is defined as follows:

      All or any part of the estate of a decedent not effectively disposed
      of by will or otherwise passes to his heirs as prescribed in this
      chapter, except as modified by the decedent's will.

20 Pa.C.S.A. § 2101(a).

      Appellant argues that due to the lack of a residuary clause in the Will,

the residuary estate must be distributed to all intestate heirs in accordance

with the Intestate Act, regardless of the provision in the will limiting

                                       -3-
J-S35015-23

Appellant’s inheritance. Appellant relies on Zeevering for this proposition, in

which a panel of this Court held that “where the intent of the testator is not

clear from the will, where the will fails to dispose of a decedent's entire estate,

and where the will fails to provide a residuary clause, the residuary estate is

to be distributed under intestacy laws.” 78 A.3d at 1111.

      On the other hand, Acoba relies on the clear language of the Probate,

Estates and Fiduciaries Code, which provides that a testator may disinherit an

heir from receiving a share of an intestate estate by and through a will:

      (b) Modification by decedent's will. — A decedent by will may
      expressly exclude or limit the right of an individual or class to
      succeed to property of the decedent passing by intestate
      succession. If that individual or a member of that class survives
      the decedent, the share of the decedent's intestate estate to which
      the individual or class would have succeeded passes as if that
      individual or each member of that class had disclaimed his
      intestate share.

20 Pa.C.S.A. § 2101(b). Acoba argues that Zeevering must be read in light

of Section 2101(b), and that when read together, they support the conclusion

that Appellant is excluded from receiving a distribution from the intestate

estate.

      In Zeevering, the decedent had executed a last will and testament

which contained specific bequests to two of his children and specifically

omitted his three other children from the will. See 78 A.3d at 1109.

Relevantly, the will read: “The failure of this will to provide any distribution to

my children, Laura Bonner, Kathleen Archacki, and Jennifer Rios, is

                                       -4-
J-S35015-23

intentional.” Id. at 1107. Similar to the instant case, there was no residuary

clause in the decedent’s will. Id.

      The executor filed a final accounting and proposed distribution that

would distribute the residue of the estate to all five of the decedent’s children.

See id. at 1107. One of the two non-omitted children filed objections asserting

that the will specifically excluded three of the children and that they should

not receive any part of the residue. See id. at 1107-1108. The orphans’ court

entered an order denying the objections and directing that the residue of the

estate be distributed under Pennsylvania’s intestacy laws due to the absence

of a residuary clause. See id. at 1108.

      On appeal, the appellant challenged whether partial intestacy should be

ordered during probate of a testator’s will, when doing so would include

beneficiaries that the testator specifically directed should not share in his

estate. See id. The appellant argued that because the will did not provide for

any distribution to three of the children, that fact illustrated a clear intent of

the decedent to leave the entire estate, including the residue, to the other two

children. See id. at 1109.

      There was no dispute that the language used in the Zeevering will

showed an intent to exclude certain family members as to what was disposed

of in the will itself. However, there was no similar proof of an intent to

distribute the entire estate in the will, let alone exclude the natural objects of

the decedent’s bounty from participating in the distribution of the entire

                                      -5-
J-S35015-23

estate. See id. at 1110 (questioning whether this Court could “bootstrap” an

intent to exclude heirs from what was disposed of in a will “into an intent to

not only distribute the entire estate but also then to exclude the natural

objects of his bounty from participating in that distribution.”).

      Conversely, the language used here specifically excludes Appellant from

the entirety of Bebout’s estate, not only the part of his estate which passes

under the Will. While the difference in language between the Zeevering will

and Bebout’s Will may appear minimal, it nevertheless establishes a clear

difference in intent, i.e. disinheriting children from a portion of an estate

included in a will, versus disinheriting children from an entire estate.

      Bebout was permitted to exclude or limit Appellant from receiving her

share of intestate property. See 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 2101(b). He did just that by

clearly stating “this is all she is to receive from me”. This broader phrase

encompassed not only specific property passing through the will, but also any

other property that Appellant could share in. Since there is a clear intent to

exclude Appellant from the distribution of the estate, evidence of which was

lacking in Zeevering, we find the trial court did not err in granting judgment

on the pleadings in favor of Acoba.

                                      -6-
J-S35015-23

     Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/4/2024

                           -7-