In Re: Estate of Mary Kochersperger (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A17011-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: ESTATE OF MARY KOCHERSPERGER, AKA MARY E. KOCHERSPERGER, DECEASED APPEAL OF: ANNE KOCHERSPERGER : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 3264 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Orders September 14, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Orphans’ Court at No(s): No. 2015-0003 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 27, 2017 Appellant, Anne Kochersperger, challenges the orders, entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Orphans’ Court, which (1) dismissed as untimely Appellant’s appeal from the decree of the Register of Wills and (2) overruled Appellant’s objections to the account and inventory of the Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Mary Kochersperger, Decedent.1 We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to ____________________________________________ This appeal is properly before us pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1), because it lies from orders which dispose of all the claims and parties in this matter. Alternatively, the orders can be considered immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(5) and (a)(6), because they represent determinations of the status of a fiduciary and an interest in real property, respectively. 1 _________________________ *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A17011-17 restate them. We add only that the court ordered a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) and Appellant complied. Appellant raises the following issues for our review: [WHETHER] THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR CTA ON MARCH 14, 2014, [MAY] BE VOIDED AS A RESULT OF AN APPEAL FILED OCTOBER 21, 2015? [WHETHER] THE STRANGER TO THE BLOOD OF A PARTIALLY INTESTATE DECEDENT AND ALSO NOT A CREDITOR OF THAT DECEDENT NEVERTHELESS [MAY] BE APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR CTA? IS A PETITION FOR GRANT OF LETTERS CTA WHICH CONSCIOUSLY OMITS THE NAMES OF KNOWN SUI JURIS HEIRS OF THE PARTIAL INTESTATE DECEDENT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE GRANT OF LETTERS TO THAT APPLICANT? DOES A NEGLECTED, ALLEGEDLY MORE-THAN-22-YEAROLD DOCUMENT PURPORTEDLY EXECUTED BY ONE GRANTOR WHOSE NAME WAS MISSPELLED THREE TIMES ON THE DOCUMENT, BY ANOTHER GRANTOR DESCRIBED BY COUNSEL AS SIGNIFICANTLY MENTALLY DISABLED, NEVER RECORDED, NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED, AND NOT EXECUTED ON THE LINES PROVIDED FOR GRANTORS NEVERTHELESS TRANSFER CERTAIN PROPERTY INTERESTS TO NOMINAL GRANTEES? (Appellant’s Brief at 8-9). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Spiros E. Angelos, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Orphans’ Court Opinion, dated December 6, 2016, at 3-10) -2- J-A17011-17 (finding (1-3) on October 21, 2015, Appellant challenged letters of administration previously granted to Mr. Sherman on March 13, 2014, which was well beyond 1-year statute of limitations period; appointment of Mr. Sherman as administrator is not void ab initio, because Register of Wills may diverge from order of preference of administrators in favor of nominee of any person with preference who renounces right to letters of administration; Mr. Sherman attached to petition for letters of administration, renunciations of Decedent’s two surviving daughters and surviving son; Register of Wills also has authority to diverge from order of preference for good cause; in his petition for letters of administration, Mr. Sherman alleged potential buyers of Marple property would lose their mortgage commitment to purchase property, on March 14, 2014, and that appointment of administrator was necessary to complete purchase; Appellant failed to established fraud against court or Register of Wills regarding grant of letters of administration to Mr. Sherman; moreover, Appellant testified that, when Mr. Sherman filed petition for letters of administration, Appellant knew estate would be opened for Decedent, and Mr. Sherman’s partner was initially going to be nominated administrator; Appellant testified she had no objection to Mr. Sherman’s partner serving as administrator and had no objection when she learned Mr. Sherman was appointed administrator, because his partner was unavailable; (4) on February 9, 1990, Marple property was originally purchased in name of Jeffrey Stewart and Christine Stewart, husband and wife, and John -3- J-A17011-17 Sheridan and Decedent; Susan Sheridan testified that Jeffrey Stewart, Christine Stewart, John Sheridan, and Decedent signed subsequent deed in her presence and deed was completed in 1991; 1991 deed transferred title from Jeffrey Stewart and Christine Stewart, husband and wife, and John Sheridan and Decedent to John Sheridan and Susan Sheridan, husband and wife, and Jeffrey Stewart and Christine Stewart, husband and wife; Decedent’s name on 1991 deed is misspelled, but misspelling matches Decedent’s name on 1990 deed; although 1991 deed was not dated, notarized, or recorded, Decedent’s will does not mention Marple property; Ms. Sheridan credibly testified on validity of deed; based on weight and credibility of testimony and inspection of 1991 deed, court found Decedent signed 1991 deed, 1991 deed was delivered to grantees and was valid; at her death, Decedent had no interest in Marple property). affirm on the basis of the Orphans’ court opinion. Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/27/2017 -4- Accordingly, we Circulated 10/03/2017 03:36 PM
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
