Court Opinion

ID: 9532143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:18:36.576885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:41.179008
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, President Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I believe that the face amount of the checks and the value of the airline tickets that decedent gave Ms. Valerie Khaner should be included in appellant’s elective share under 20 Pa.C.S. § 2203. Otherwise I join in the majority’s disposi*165tion, although on the issue of decedent’s deferred compensation plan, my reasoning is a bit different.
-1-
The majority states that “[tjhere is no indication on the record ... that any of the six personal cheeks or airline tickets conveyed to Ms. Khaner were given with donative intent.” At 162. One must ask, “Why else did he give them to her?” Decedent’s son testified, without contradiction, that his father intended to marry Ms. Khaner, N.T. 101, and that Ms. Khaner provided no professional services to his father, N.T. 102. (The only other witness on the point was I. Jerome Stern, a co-executor of decedent’s estate, who said he had no opinion whether the checks and airline tickets were gifts. N.T. 141).
The majority says that it “will not \i.e., may not] infer donative intent, based on a non-familial, close personal friendship,” at 163, but the cases the majority cites do not so hold. Instead the cases all involve gifts between family members and hold only that when “a claimant is a close relative, ... less evidence to prove the gift is required than to prove a gift to a stranger.” Balfour v. Seitz, 392 Pa. 300, 304 n. 4, 140 A.2d 441, 443 n. 4 (1958). See also Estate of Chiara, 467 Pa. 586, 592 n. 5, 359 A.2d 756, 759-60 n. 5 (1976); Brighthill v. Boeshore, 385 Pa. 69, 76, 122 A.2d 38, 42 (1956); Chapple’s Estate, 332 Pa. 168, 170, 2 A.2d 719, 720 (1938); Yeager’s Estate, 273 Pa. 359, 362, 117 A. 67, 68 (1922). Since here the (asserted) gifts were not “between family members”, these cases are not helpful. In other words: Knowing that less evidence is required to prove a gift when the transfer is between family members does not help decide whether here there was enough evidence to prove a gift.
One who claims a gift has the burden of proving intent and delivery by evidence that is clear, precise, and convincing. Pappas Estate, 428 Pa. 540, 542, 239 A.2d 298, 300 (1968). When a prima facie case that a gift was made is established, the burden shifts to the opponent of the gift, and to sustain that burden the opponent must likewise *166produce clear, precise, and convincing evidence. Fenstermaker Estate, 413 Pa. 645, 648, 198 A.2d 857, 859 (1964); Rogan Estate, 404 Pa. 205, 211, 171 A.2d 177, 179 (1961). For nay part, I ana satisfied that the evidence of decedent’s relationship with Ms. Khaner established a prima facie case, which was unrebutted by any evidence, much less by clear, precise, and convincing evidence.
-2-
Appellant argues that the amounts paid on decedent’s behalf into a deferred compensation plan should also be included in her elective share under 20 Pa.C.S. § 2203(a)(3). That section provides:
(3) Property conveyed by the decedent during his lifetime to the extent that the decedent at the time of his death had a power to revoke the conveyance or to consume, invade or dispose of the principal for his own benefit. 20 Pa.C.S. § 2203(a)(3).
Appellant claims that decedent’s designation of beneficiaries under the plan was a “conveyance.” “Conveyance” means “an act by which it is intended to create an interest in real or personal property whether the act is intended to have inter vivos or testamentary operation.” 20 Pa.C.S. § 2201. Here, decedent’s designation of beneficiaries could have no “inter vivos ... operation”; it could only give rise to an expectancy. Nor could the designation have any “testamentary operation,” for 20 Pa.C.S. § 6108(a) provides in part that:
[t]he designation of beneficiaries of life insurance, annuity or endowment contracts, or of any agreement entered into by an insurance company in connection therewith, supplemental thereto or in settlement thereof, and the designation of beneficiaries of benefits payable upon or after the death of a participant under any pension, bonus, profit-sharing, retirement annuity, or other employee-benefit plan, shall not be considered testamentary and shall not be subject to any law governing the transfer of property by will.
*167I should therefore reverse the order of the trial court insofar as the checks and airline tickets, as well as the deferred compensation plan, are concerned, while otherwise affirming.