 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Klink12/14/1999
Appeal from the Order of April 29, 1999, In the Court of Common Pleas, Fayette County, Orphans Division, at No. 84 of 1999.
Deana Schobert appeals from the order of the Orphans' Court denying her petition to remove Betty Lou Klink as the administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Klink. We affirm.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. The decedent, Thomas Klink, was twenty-eight years of age when he was struck and killed by a motor vehicle as he walked along a highway. The accident occurred on November 22, 1998. An autopsy revealed the decedent's blood alcohol level at the time of his death to be extremely high, at 0.403%. The decedent was survived by one son, then seven years of age, as well as his parents, Donald and Betty Lou Klink. Appellant, Deana Schobert, is the natural mother of the decedent's son. Although she and the decedent resided together for a number of years, the two were never married, and their relationship had ended prior to Thomas Klink's death. The decedent left no will, and the only assets of the estate are claims against the establishments he patronized on the night of his death, as well as against the motorist who struck him.
On January 25, 1999, Appellant presented a petition for the grant of letters of administration to the Register of Wills of Fayette County. The Register did not grant her petition, based on an unwritten office policy that letters not issue to the parent of a minor child who had never married the decedent; the office favors the grant of letters to a decedent's parent or other blood relative. (R. 51a-55a.)
Two days later, on January 27, 1999, Appellee presented her own petition for grant of letters of administration of her son's estate, which the Register of Wills granted that same date. Appellant then filed a petition to appeal the decision of the Register of Wills. On February 25, 1999 the Orphans' Court issued a citation and scheduled a hearing on the matter, which was held on March 15, 1999 and included testimony by Appellant, Appellee, and the Register of Wills. The Orphans' Court entered an order April 29, 1999, denying the relief requested by Appellant, and directing that Appellee remain as administratrix of the estate, and a timely appeal followed.
There is also no dispute that Appellant and Appellee are equally qualified as "persons entitled" to letters of administration under the Decedents, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 101 et seq., as they are both members of the same classification, "other fit persons." 20 Pa.C.S. § 3155(b). Thus neither has any automatic priority or preference over the other as the proper person to administer the estate. In the usual circumstance the Register of Wills has the discretion to appoint an administrator from within the class of persons eligible for that appointment. Estate of Dilbon, 690 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Super. 1997).
Appellant correctly phrases the issue to be decided as whether the Orphans' Court erred in its determination that Appellee should remain administratrix, although her argument focuses on the discretion of the Register of Wills. Appellee's argument likewise concentrates on whether the Register abused his discretion. Had the Orphans' Court not taken any evidence, we would agree that our review would be limited to a determination of whether the Register abused his discretion in the issuance of letters. See In Re Dodge, 522 A.2d 77 (Pa. Super. 1987). However, that is not the situation presently before us. Because the Orphans' Court made findings following a hearing and review of the record, those findings on appeal must be accorded the same weight and effect as would a jury verdict. Dilbon, supra.
This court p
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|