Court Opinion

ID: 9865411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 17:08:38.998071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:12.691267
License: Public Domain

J-A20028-23

                                  2023 PA Super 180

  IN RE: ESTATE OF: SUSAN L.                   :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  KITTLER, DECEASED                            :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: KARL E. KITTLER                   :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1636 MDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered October 11, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
                         Orphans’ Court at 2022-00236

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

OPINION BY MURRAY, J.:                              FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

       Karl E. Kittler (Appellant) appeals from the order denying his petition for

citation sur appeal from the register’s decree refusing to probate the will of

Susan L. Kittler, Deceased (Decedent). We affirm.

       Decedent died on October 17, 2021.           She was survived by her two

children: Appellant and Keith A. Kittler (Keith).         On January 27, 2022,

Appellant filed a petition for probate and grant of letters testamentary.

Appellant attached a document purporting to be Decedent’s will. On January

31, 2022, the register of wills issued a decree denying Appellant’s petition and

refusing to probate the purported will.

       On February 28, 2022, Appellant filed a notice of intention to appeal.

On April 28, 2022, Appellant filed a petition for citation sur appeal. A citation

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A20028-23

was issued and returned to the orphans’ court on June 8, 2022. Keith joined

Appellant’s appeal on June 10, 2022. No one opposed the petition for citation

sur appeal.

      At a July 18, 2022, hearing, Appellant presented the testimony of John

Porter, Esquire (Attorney Porter), the scrivener of Decedent’s will, and Janelle

Black Makowski (Ms. Makowski), the notary public who notarized the will.

      Attorney Porter testified that on October 26, 2020, he met with
      [Appellant], Keith [], and Keith’ s wife, Heather Kittler, to discuss
      the medical condition of [Decedent]. At the time, [Decedent] had
      been hospitalized related to a fall she suffered[, and also had] a
      cancer biopsy, the results of which were pending. It was assumed
      that the biopsy would exhibit unfavorable results.

      At the initial conference, Attorney Porter was provided contact
      information for Decedent, and on November 12, 2020, he was
      eventually able to [contact] her to discuss her estate planning. At
      the time, [] Decedent was in a nursing home during the height of
      the COVID-19 pandemic and visitors were prohibited. During that
      initial conversation between Attorney Porter and the Decedent, []
      Decedent expressed that she wanted to create a last will and
      testament as well as a power of attorney. [] Decedent and
      Attorney Porter had a detailed and candid discussion about
      Decedent’s wishes for administration of her estate and the
      responsibilities of the person selected to follow her health care
      directives.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 10/11/21, at 2-3 (citations omitted).

      Attorney Porter testified that his next conversation with Decedent

      occurred on November 18, 2020, at which time [] Decedent had
      learned that her cancer was in her bone. [] Decedent wished to
      include her financial planner, Adam Hartzell, in the discussion of
      her estate planning[,] and he was included in the conference call
      on November 18, 2020. [] Decedent, Attorney Porter[,] and Mr.
      Hartzell worked together to ensure that all participants in the
      telephonic conference understood [] Decedent’s assets and that
      both the probate and non-probate assets would flow to the

                                      -2-
J-A20028-23

      beneficiaries in accordance with [] Decedent’s intent. Attorney
      Porter testified that [] Decedent was clear about her wishes to
      draft a Will to ensure that all parties knew her intent and desires
      when it came to distribution of her assets.

      Attorney Porter drafted a will in accordance with [] Decedent’s
      wishes. He secured the services of [Ms.] Makowski, a notary who
      was qualified to conduct a remote notarization of a document.
      Attorney Porter had two witnesses join him at his office, namely,
      Vicki Sealover and Karmin Smith (witnesses).

Id. at 3-4 (citations omitted, emphasis added).

      On November 24, 2020, a video conference took place. Attorney Porter

and his two witnesses attended the video conference from his office; Decedent

attended from her nursing home; and Ms. Makowski attended from her

residence. Id. at 4 (citations omitted). The orphans’ court explained,

      [Ms.] Makowski … was employed by the York County Bar
      Association at the time. Ms. Makowski utilized DocVerify, an
      online software vendor that met the Pennsylvania Department of
      State’s requirements to serve as a secure electronic method for
      affixing a digital signature which may be acknowledged through
      the remote participation of a notary public. Ms. Makowski testified
      extensively about the DocVerify procedure.

      In order to utilize the DocVerify software, the signer must go
      through an independent verification process to confirm the
      signer’s identity, including the signer’s address and social security
      number. While establishing an account, DocVerify collects an
      electronic signature from the signer. This “collected” signature
      can then be applied to the document uploaded onto DocVerify for
      purposes of notarization.

Id. at 4-5 (citations omitted). Ms. Makowski also required a signer to present

state-issued identification at the time of signing.   Id. at 5. Ms. Makowski

confirmed that Decedent verified her identity during the video conference. Id.

                                      -3-
J-A20028-23

      The purported will included, at its end, a signature line followed by a red

box containing the word “Seal.” Id. at 6. The orphans’ court relayed:

      On the line for [] Decedent’s signature is a red box that contains
      the number 587B93E4B8EA at the top of the box in red and
      “Signed on 2020/11/24 10:59:15-8:00” in black at the bottom of
      the box. Inside the box is the script name (not a font generated
      by a computer) appearing to be the signature of [Decedent]. This
      signatory box also appears on the bottom of each of the prior
      pages, not directly above the blank line and the initials SLK, but
      to the left of the line.

Id. (citations omitted)

      The orphans’ court ultimately concluded that Decedent’s electronic

signature failed to meet Pennsylvania’s legal standard for signing a will. Id.

at 8. Taking as true the facts most favorable to Appellant, the orphans’ court

concluded “the Purported Will is not a will executed pursuant to Pennsylvania’s

long-standing statute and is not subject to probate as such.” Id. Therefore,

the orphans’ court denied Appellant’s petition for citation sur appeal. Orphans’

Court Order, 10/11/20. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant

and the orphans’ court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      Appellant presents the following issue:

      Did the Orphans’ Court err by concluding the electronic signature
      affixed to [] Decedent’s will is insufficient to satisfy the
      requirement that her will be signed at the end thereof?

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

      Appellant emphasizes that Decedent’s will undisputedly “bears her

signature – and not a computer-generated font – at the end thereof.” Id. at

18. Appellant claims the orphans’ court cites no statute or case to support its

                                      -4-
J-A20028-23

conclusion that an electronic signature is not a “signature” under 20 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 2502.      Id. at 19.      According to Appellant, the Probate, Estates and

Fiduciaries Code (Probate Code)1 does not define “sign” and “signature.” Id.

at 20. Appellant relies on the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary:

       Black’s La[w] dictionary defines the noun “signature” in two ways:
       (1) a person’s name or mark written by that person or at the
       person’s direction; and (2) any name, mark or writing used with
       the intention of authenticating a document.

Id. at 20 (citing BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11TH ed. 2019)).             Appellant

additionally relies on the definition in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil

Procedure:

       The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure define[] “signature” to
       include a computer-generated signature created, transmitted,
       received, or stored by electronic means….

Id. (citing Pa.R.C.P. 76).           Appellant acknowledges, “Neither of these

definitions is specific to the execution of estate planning documents….” Id.

       Appellant asserts “the lack of legislative authority on what constitutes a

signature in the context of testamentary rights has required judicial

intervention for more than one hundred years[.]” Id. at 22. Appellant directs

our attention to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decisions in In re

Brennan’s Estate, 91 A. 220 (Pa. 2014), Appeal of Knox, 18 A. 1021

(1890), and In re Kimmel’s Estate, 123 A. 405 (Pa. 1924). Appellant’s Brief

____________________________________________

1 See 20 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 101-8815.

                                           -5-
J-A20028-23

at 22-24.   Appellant argues that in Kimmel, which interpreted Knox and

Brennan’s Estate, the Supreme Court applied an “intent-based” approach to

determine whether the decedent’s handwritten “Father”, at the end of his will,

met the signature requirements for a will. Id. at 24-25.

      Appellant additionally cites the Cumberland County Orphans’ Court’s

decision in In Re Estate of Joyce A. Waltman, 21-21-0045 (Cumberland

O.C. 2021). Appellant’s Brief at 25. In substantially similar circumstances,

the orphans’ court accepted for probate a document with an electronic

signature. See id. at 25, 28. In Waltman, Appellant asserts, the orphans’

court details

      the Pennsylvania Department of State’s communications provided
      to attorney on April 02/2020, which indicated that self-proving
      wills could be executed using remote online notarization.
      Waltman concludes: “In the case before this court, a reading of
      the [Probate] Code, legislative rules, definitions and case law
      show this e-will complies with the statutory requirements in that
      it is in ‘writing’ and ‘signed at the end thereof.’” Waltman at 12.
      Waltman explains:

      “The remote ceremony served the same evidentiary functions as
      much as an in-person ceremony. The use of webcams provides
      an opportunity to photograph the decedent and witnesses as well
      as recording the entire transactions.    The specialized state
      approved software required to be used in [Electronic/Remote
      Notarization (RON)], provides security technology beyond
      anything existing in hard copy wills.

      ….

      As an alternative to using RON during the Covid restrictions,
      [D]ecedent could have signed her will without witnesses or a
      notary and it would have been acceptable for probate. Admitting
      such a document with little proof as to its veracity, while refusing

                                     -6-
J-A20028-23

     an e-will executed with formality and an abundance of safeguards
     would be absurd, unreasonable, and against legislative intent.

     Id. at 12.

Appellant’s Brief at 28-29 (emphasis omitted).

     Finally, Appellant claims the orphans’ court improperly imposed new

requirements for executing a will, “while ignoring the advancements in

technology.”   Id. at 32 (capitalization modified).    Appellant argues the

orphans’ court now requires that a will be signed using pen and paper. Id.

     Appellant challenges the orphans’ court’s interpretation of Probate Code

Section 2502. As with all questions of law, our standard of review is de novo,

and our scope of review is plenary. In re Estate of Wilner, 142 A.3d 796,

801 (Pa. 2016).

     This case presents an issue of statutory interpretation.

     “The best indication of legislative intent is the plain language of
     the statute.” Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., 226 A.3d 526, 535
     (Pa. 2020), citing Matter of Private Sale of Prop. By Millcreek
     Twp. Sch. Dist., 646 Pa. 339, 185 A.3d 282, 290-91 (Pa.
     2018). … When the words of a statute are clear and free from
     ambiguity, the letter of the statute is not to be disregarded under
     the pretext of pursuing its spirit. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). “‘Only if
     the statute is ambiguous, and not explicit, do we resort to other
     means of discerning legislative intent.’” Roverano, 226 A.3d at
     535, quoting Millcreek Twp. Sch. Dist., 185 A.3d at 291; 1
     Pa.C.S. § 1921(c).

     … “The [Statutory Construction] Act provides that ‘[w]ords and
     phrases shall be construed according to the rules of grammar and
     according to their common and approved usage’; and that
     ‘technical words and phrases and such others as have acquired a
     peculiar and appropriate meaning … shall be construed according
     to such peculiar and appropriate meaning or definition.’” Id.,
     quoting 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a). “Further, if the General Assembly

                                    -7-
J-A20028-23

      defines words that are used in a statute, those definitions are
      binding.” Id., citing Commonwealth v. Kimmel, 523 Pa. 107,
      565 A.2d 426, 428 (Pa. 1989). The Act allows a court to presume
      that the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd,
      impossible of execution or unreasonable; that the General
      Assembly intends the entire statute to be certain and effective,
      and intends to favor the public interest as against any private
      interest. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1), (2), (5)….

Raynor v. D’Annunzio, 243 A.3d 41, 53-54 (Pa. 2020).           When the words

of a statute are not explicit,

      the intention of the General Assembly may be ascertained by
      considering, among other matters:

      (1)   The occasion and necessity for the statute.

      (2)   The circumstances under which it was enacted.

      (3)   The mischief to be remedied.

      (4)   The object to be attained.

      (5)   The former law, if any, including other statutes upon the
            same or similar subjects.

      (6)   The consequences of a particular interpretation.

      (7)   The contemporaneous legislative history.

      (8)   Legislative   and administrative    interpretations of such
            statute.

1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(c).

      Mindful of the foregoing, we review the Probate Code’s requirements for

executing a will.

      Section 102 of the Probate Code defines a “will” as “a written will, codicil

or other testamentary writing.” 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 102. Section 2502 provides:

                                      -8-
J-A20028-23

      Every will shall be in writing and shall be signed by the testator
      at the end thereof, subject to the following rules and exceptions:

      (1) Words following signature. — The presence of any writing
      after the signature to a will, whether written before or after its
      execution, shall not invalidate that which precedes the signature.

      (2) Signature by mark. — If the testator is unable to sign his
      name for any reason, a will to which he makes his mark and to
      which his name is subscribed before or after he makes his mark
      shall be as valid as though he had signed his name thereto:
      Provided, [t]hat he makes his mark in the presence of two
      witnesses who sign their names to the will in his presence.

      (3) Signature by another. — If the testator is unable to sign his
      name or to make his mark for any reason, a will to which his name
      is subscribed in his presence and by his express direction shall be
      as valid as though he had signed his name thereto: Provided,
      [t]hat he declares the instrument to be his will in the presence of
      two witnesses who sign their names to it in his presence.

Id. § 2502 (emphasis added).

      Our Supreme Court has long recognized that a testamentary instrument

must be signed, as required by statute, to be valid. In re Sciutti’s Estate,

92 A.2d 188, 189 (Pa. 1952) (“an unsigned document in the form of a will

cannot be probated as a will. A will in order to be valid must be signed.”)

(emphasis omitted). In Brown’s Estate, 32 A.2d 22 (Pa. 1943), the Court

explained that a will must be signed because

      (1) [I]t shall appear from the face of the instrument itself that
      the testator’s intent was consummated and that the instrument
      was complete and (2) to prevent fraudulent or unauthorized
      alterations or additions to the will.

Id. at 23.

                                     -9-
J-A20028-23

       The Probate Code does not define the terms “signed” or “signature.”

Accordingly, these words “shall be construed according to the rules of

grammar and according to their common and approved usage[.]” 1 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 1903(a). The dictionary defines “signature,” as “the act of signing one’s

name to something[;]” and “the name of a person written with his or her

own hand[.]”         “Signature.”      Merriam-Webster.com.    August 19, 2023.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/signature          (accessed    August

25, 2023) (emphasis added).

       The verb “sign” is defined “to affix a signature to[;]” “ratify or attest by

hand or seal[;]” to write down (one’s name)[;]” and “to affix one’s name to[.]”

“Sign.” Merriam-Webster.com.            August 19, 2023.   https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/sign (accessed August 25, 2023). The dictionary also

includes a “legal definition” for “sign” as “to affix a signature to[.]” See id.

The definitions do not expressly include computer generated signatures.

       Our legislature has approved the use of electronic signatures in

Pennsylvania’s Electronic Transactions Act (PETA).2        In PETA, the General

Assembly declared, “A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or

enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.” 73 P.S. § 2260.303(a).

However, the scope of PETA is limited to transactions:

       (a) GENERAL RULE.— Except as provided in subsection (b), this
       act applies to electronic records and electronic signatures relating
       to a transaction.
____________________________________________

2 See 73 P.S. §§ 2250.101–2260.5101.

                                          - 10 -
J-A20028-23

      (b) EXCEPTION.— Subject to subsection (c), this act does not
      apply to a transaction to the extent it is governed by any of the
      following:

           (1) A law governing the creation and execution of
           wills, codicils or testamentary trusts.

73 P.S. § 2260.104(a)-(b)(1) (bold and underline added).        Thus, PETA’s

provisions do not apply in this case, where the Probate Code dictates the

“creation and execution” of wills. See id. § (b)(1).

      Appellant argues the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure have adopted

the use of electronic signatures. Appellant’s Brief at 20. Rule 76 provides:

      The following words and phrases when used in the Rules of Civil
      Procedure shall have the following meanings, respectively, unless
      the context clearly indicates otherwise or the particular word or
      phrase is expressly defined in the chapter in which the particular
      rule is included:

      ….

      “[S]ignature,” includes

      ….

      (2) when used in reference to documents produced by a court of
      the Unified Judicial System, a handwritten signature, a copy of a
      handwritten signature, a computer generated signature or a
      signature created, transmitted, received, or stored by
      electronic means, by the signer or by someone with the signer’s
      authorization unless otherwise provided in these rules[.]

Pa.R.C.P. 76 (emphasis added).

      The Orphans’ Court Rules include no similar provision.        However,

Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 510, adopted by our Supreme

Court, permits electronic filing of guardianship reports and accountings:

                                    - 11 -
J-A20028-23

      The submission and acceptance of an electronic filing shall satisfy
      the reporting requirements of Pa.O.C. Rule 14.8. An electronic
      filing shall be considered filed with the Clerk upon the date and
      time of the filer’s electronic submission, if the Clerk determines
      the requirements for filing are met. If the Clerk determines the
      requirements for filing are not met, the Clerk may take any action
      as permitted by law, including, but not limited to, returning the
      submission for correction.

Pa.R.J.A. 510(c)(6).

      Rule 510 expressly provides for electronic signatures:

      (d) Signature.

         (1) The electronic signature of the guardian, as required
         on the reports and inventories, shall be in the following
         form: /s/ Chris L. Smith.

         (2) The use of an electronic signature on electronically
         filed reports and inventories shall constitute the guardian’s
         acknowledgement of, and agreement with, the verification
         statements contained therein.

Pa.R.J.A. 510(d).   The Supreme Court permitted the use of an electronic

signature to meet the requirements of Pa.O.C.R. 14.8 (Guardianship

Reporting, Monitoring, Review, and Compliance), but adopted no similar rule

regarding the execution of wills.

      Clearly, Pennsylvania’s definition of a valid will has contemplated the

technology available to testators and their counsel.      Neither our General

Assembly nor our Supreme Court have approved the use of DocVerify, or any

other software, in executing a valid will.   In the absence of any authority

governing electronic wills, our orphans’ courts have issued conflicting

decisions regarding their validity. Compare Estate of Nadim R. Baker, No.

                                    - 12 -
J-A20028-23

36-20-0446 (Lancaster O.C. 2021) (refusing to probate an electronically

signed will); with In Re Estate of Joyce A. Waltman, 21-21-0045

(Cumberland O.C. 2021) (accepting for probate an electronically signed will).

We recognize the need for guidance on this issue because policy decisions rest

with our General Assembly, not this Court.

       We further acknowledge that various states have adopted versions of

the Uniform Law Commission’s3 Uniform Electronic Wills Act (UEWA),4 while

Pennsylvania has not.         Again, “as an appellate court, we are charged to

interpret the law as it is now, not what we want it to be, or what it might be

in the future.” Commonwealth v. Stone, 273 A.3d 1163, 1174 (Pa. Super.

2022). We are thus constrained to await a pronouncement from our Supreme

Court or General Assembly regarding electronic technology in the execution

of wills.

____________________________________________

3 “[T]he National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws,
established in 1892, provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and
well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state
statutory law.”        https://www.uniformlaws.org/aboutulc/overview (last
accessed Aug. 31, 2023).

4 See https://higherlogicdownload.s3-external-1.amazonaws.com

/UNIFORMLAWS/d895e3bb-c273-fff3-0ec9-
9fb89b151f16_file.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAVRDO7IEREB57R7MT&Expires
=1693496891&Signature=ONEaWfBd%2F9UXx61jbmH8UnGUiRU%3D
(accessed August 31, 2023).

                                          - 13 -
J-A20028-23

       The orphans’ court recognized the limits of its authority in denying

Appellant’s citation sur appeal:

       The requirements to make a will in Pennsylvania are
       straightforward. A will must be in writing, a will must be made by
       a person over the age of 18 years who is of sound mind, and a
       will must be signed by the testator at the end of the writing. 20
       Pa.C.S. § 2501 and § 2502. Statutory authority exists for the
       execution of a will by a decedent’s mark, but the mark must be
       made on the testamentary document in the presence of two
       witnesses5 who sign their names to the will[,] and that the
       witnesses [indicate] that the will was executed by mark rather
       than by the testator’s signature. Id.

       The Decedent’s Purported Will bears her name in script writing
       near the end of the document. However, this script writing is an
       image which is sometimes referred to as a “digital signature” that
       was placed upon the document electronically through the
       DocVerify software. The Decedent never put ink to the copy of
       the Purported Will offered for probate. The [orphans’ c]ourt will
       not exceed its authority by expanding the statutory requirement
       that a will must be signed at the end to encompass the placement
       of an image towards the end of the document in lieu of the
       testator’s manual signature on the document.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 10/11/21, at 9 (emphasis and footnote added).

       As we agree with the orphans’ court’s reasoning and discern no error,

we are constrained to affirm the order denying Appellant’s petition for citation

sur appeal.

       Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

5 The statute does not indicate that the           presence of the two witnesses, via
video conference, is acceptable.

                                          - 14 -
J-A20028-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 09/25/2023

                          - 15 -