Court Opinion

ID: 9707066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:01:08.738462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:27.689522
License: Public Domain

*126Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Oohen :
I believe, that under the circumstances of this case, decedent made for his second wife a reasonable provision so that the agreement may not be circumvented, and appellant’s petition to vacate claimant’s election should have been granted. In Kaufman Estate, 404 Pa. 131, 171 A. 2d 48 (1961), we stated that reasonableness may depend upon various factors: (1) the financial worth of the husband; (2) the financial status of the wife; (3) the age of the parties and the number of children each has; (4) the intelligence of the parties; and (5) whether or not the wife aided in the accumulation of the wealth. The record discloses that when the agreement was signed, decedent was worth approximately $150,000 and had an additional interest in his first wife’s unsettled estate of over $112,-000. By the same token while the record does not disclose the precise value of claimant’s estate at the time the agreement was signed, the evidence reveals that she was a woman of considerable means. During the month prior to the marriage, claimant told decedent’s daughter that she did not need the money she would receive under the agreement because she had plenty of her own. On the same occasion, she and decedent discussed with his daughter the fact that claimant was a wealthy woman in her own right and that she wanted her estate to pass to her children. Further, claimant maintained separate bank and stockbroker accounts and had invested large sums of money. All of her financial matters were conducted separately from those of decedent.
When they married, both parties were in their sixties and had families of their own. The parties were intelligent people, both of whom realized an obligation to their children and grandchildren, and out of love and affection desired their separate estates to pass to the natural objects of their bounties. Accordingly, each in a rational manner relinquished his own *127right to share in the estate of the other. Each had accumulated his property without the aid of the other. Neither wished the other to deprive his family of that which he had accumulated over the course of a lifetime. Under the circumstances, I conclude that the sum of $15,000 received by claimant was ample provision and was reasonable by the standard established by this Court. In Clark’s Estate, 303 Pa. 538, 154 Atl. 919 (1931), we set forth as the test of adequacy of the provision for the wife a consideration of whether or not it is sufficient to enable her to live comfortably, after the husband’s death, in the same way as she had previously lived. In the instant case, prior to the marriage, claimant lived in her own home which was clear of mortgage, and which continued as the marital domicil for claimant and decedent. As explained above, the two maintained completely separate and independent financial interests. Claimant’s standard of living during the marriage was neither better nor worse than before the marriage. Likewise there is no evidence that it has changed as a result of the death of decedent.
A crucial factor which the orphans’ court ignored and which strengthens my conviction that this ante-nuptial agreement is binding and valid is the mutuality of the promises. Each party agreed to waive his rights in the other’s estate in return for a similar covenant. Indeed, this Court has sustained the validity of a prenuptial agreement containing mutual releases against the estate of each spouse even though the agreement made no provision for payment of money or other valuable consideration to the wife and even though the husband’s estate was twice as large as that of the wife. Zeigler Estate, 381 Pa. 436, 113 A. 2d 271 (1955). In fact, in that case, as a result of the remarriage the wife lost her social security payments of $46.80 per month, and when her husband died about two years *128later, her benefits were reinstated at the reduced rate of $18.80 per month. In Zeigler the agreement fully disclosed the property held by each spouse, and was valid on that basis alone; however, significantly for its applicability to the instant matter the Court in Zeigler recognized that the deceased husband felt a natural obligation to leave his estate to his children and that the wife knew of the children before she entered into the agreement or the marriage.
Furthermore, there is testimony on the record that claimant knew several months before the marriage that decedent was worth about a quarter of a million dollars because his son-in-law had so informed her at a family get-together. Coupling this evidence with the fact that the scrivener of the agreement currently under attack by claimant was her own counsel, I must conclude that she is estopped from maintaining the present action.
Moreover, after the close of testimony the auditing judge so injected himself into the conduct of the case to the detriment of the estate, that at least a new trial should be granted. He insisted that counsel for claimant place her on the witness stand because, as he indicated, his affection and concern for the scrivener necessitated his taking an active part in the conduct of the case.
I dissent.