Court Opinion

ID: 9711120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:24:42.592811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:17.407451
License: Public Domain

POMEROY, Justice,
dissenting.
The judge of the Orphans’ Court division below concluded that a writing prepared by and under the direction of the decedent, John W. Ritchie, evidenced both a testamentary character of the instrument and a testamentary intent of the decedent. The court therefore affirmed the order of the Register of Wills admitting the writing to probate. This Court now reverses on the theory that the holographic instrument involved was no more than a listing of assets from which a will was later to be prepared and that it was lacking in that testamentary character which is an indispensable attribute of a will. While such an interpretation of the document in question and of the evidence in the case may indeed have been a reasonable one for the court of first *69instance to adopt, it exceeds the proper scope of appellate review:
“Our review in these cases is limited to determining whether the findings of fact approved by the court en banc rest on legally competent and sufficient evidence, and whether an error of law has been made or an abuse of discretion committed. In re Estate of Fickert, 461 Pa. 653, 337 A.2d 592 (1975); Protyniak Will, 427 Pa. 524, 235 A.2d 372 (1967); Abrams Will, 419 Pa. 92, 213 A.2d 638 (1965). It is not our task to try the case anew. Credibility of the witnesses is for the hearing judge who has heard and seen them and the record will be reviewed by us in the light most favorable to the appellee. In re Estate of Fickert, supra, 461 Pa. at 657, 337 A.2d at 594.” In re Estate of Ziel, 467 Pa. 531, 536-37, 359 A.2d 728, 731 (1976).
In the case at bar the conclusions of the Orphans’ Court were supported by sufficient and competent evidence; this Court should not presume, on the cold record before it, to substitute its own view of the operative facts for that of the trial court. Hence this dissent.
The challenged instrument read as follows:
“For Aileen and Jane
Executors
To Whom It May Concern
tractor MF guns
lawn mower cub 300 savage
boat & motor 410 gauge
carriage trailer 22 single
cachman trailer 22 Revolver
Farm 61 acres 12 g. shotgun
tools & garage equipment Chev
shall be divided 50/50 Truck
all assets 50/50
John W. Ritchie 3/2/74 ”
The trial court found the writing to be ambiguous and, without objection, admitted extrinsic evidence in order to determine whether the decedent possessed the requisite tes*70tamentary intent at the time of its preparation. In re Estate of Sedmak, 467 Pa. 379, 357 A.2d 142 (1976); Kauffman’s Will, 365 Pa. 555, 76 A.2d 414 (1950). Based upon this extrinsic evidence, the trial court concluded that:
(1) the document was prepared by the decedent on or about March 2, 1974;
(2) the document was in Mr. Ritchie’s handwriting except that the words “'For Aileen and Jane, Executors” were placed on the document by Glenn Stake, husband of Aileen Stake, at the direction and in the presence of the decedent;
(3) the decedent had repeatedly expressed a desire to atone for the slighting of his family in the past and thus desired that his farm pass to his children;
(4) the use of the words “Executors” and “To Whom it May Concern” evidenced the decedent’s desire that the writing was to serve as a disposition of his property in the event of his death;
(5) the use of the words “For Aileen and Jane” and “all assets 50/50”, read in conjunction with the decedent’s expressed desire to devise his farm to his children, established the requisite testamentary intent.
My reading of the record satisfies me that the trial court was entirely justified in reaching these conclusions.
In short, the trial court properly admitted extrinsic evidence which, read together with the holographic instrument, established a reasonable basis for that court’s conclusion that the writing before it was more than a mere listing of assets in contemplation of a later will, but was in fact testamentary. See Kauffman’s Will, supra; Wenz’s Estate, 345 Pa. 393, 29 A.2d 13 (1942); Scott’s Estate (No. 1), 147 Pa. 89, 23 A. 212 (1892). I would therefore affirm the decree of the Orphans’ Court division.
O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.