Estate of Nalaschi
2014 WL 1408560, 2014 Pa. Super. 73, 90 A.3d 8 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Testamentary capacity is determined at the time a will is executed, and evidence from witnesses who observed the testator on or near that date is more probative than medical expert opinions based on records or evidence of the testator's condition at a remote time. To prove undue influence, a contestant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the testator had a weakened intellect, a confidential relationship existed, and the person in that relationship received a substantial benefit.
Facts:
- Albert Nalaschi, Sr. ('Decedent') had eight children from two marriages.
- On January 28, 2010, Decedent executed a will ('the 2010 Will') naming his daughter, Louise Lokuta, as the sole beneficiary and his son, Eugene Nalaschi, as the executor.
- Throughout 2010, Decedent exhibited concerning behaviors, including accusing his daughters of theft, getting lost on his way to a doctor's appointment, and reporting that he had stopped taking his medications.
- In March 2011, Decedent mistakenly wrote a check for $23,000 instead of the intended $2,300 cash advance.
- Decedent's son, James Nalaschi, lived with and cared for him. On one occasion, James threatened to put Decedent in a nursing home if he did not hang up the phone on his sister, Cheryl.
- In late March and April 2011, Decedent met alone with two separate attorneys, a social worker, and his primary care physician, all of whom found him to be competent.
- On April 25, 2011, Decedent executed a new will ('the 2011 Will') which named his son, James Nalaschi, as the sole beneficiary and attorney Charles Witaconis as the executor.
- Decedent died on July 6, 2012.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Albert Nalaschi, Sr.'s death, the Register of Wills of Lackawanna County accepted the 2010 Will for probate and issued letters testamentary to the named executor, Eugene Nalaschi.
- Charles Witaconis, the executor of the 2011 Will, filed a petition in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, Orphans' Court Division, to have the letters for the 2010 Will revoked and to compel the probate of the 2011 Will.
- Eugene Nalaschi contested the petitions, arguing the 2011 Will was invalid due to the Decedent's lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by James Nalaschi.
- The Orphans' Court (trial court) held a hearing and issued a decree revoking the letters for the 2010 Will and admitting the 2011 Will to probate, finding the Decedent had capacity and was not unduly influenced.
- Eugene Nalaschi, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decree to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the decedent lack testamentary capacity or was he subject to undue influence when he executed the 2011 Will, thereby rendering it invalid?
Opinions:
Majority - Donohue, J.
No, the decedent possessed testamentary capacity and was not subject to undue influence when he executed the 2011 Will. Regarding testamentary capacity, the court held that capacity is evaluated on the date the will is executed. The testimony of witnesses who interacted with the Decedent at or near the time of the 2011 Will's execution—including two attorneys, his physician, and an Aging Care Manager—all affirmed his competence. This direct evidence was deemed more probative than Eugene's evidence of questionable actions from over a year prior and the opinion of an expert, Dr. Turchetti, who had never met the Decedent. The court found that Eugene's evidence did not sufficiently prove that, at the moment of execution, the Decedent was unaware of his property, his heirs, or his wishes. Regarding undue influence, the court found that Eugene failed to meet his burden of proving all three required elements: (1) weakened intellect, (2) a confidential relationship, and (3) a substantial benefit. While James clearly received a substantial benefit, Eugene failed to prove the other two elements. The court concluded the Decedent did not suffer from a weakened intellect, as his behavior did not rise to the level of 'persistent confusion, forgetfulness and disorientation' and was contradicted by multiple professionals who found him lucid. Furthermore, no confidential relationship existed; a parent-child relationship alone is insufficient, and the evidence showed the Decedent met with his attorneys privately to ensure his wishes were his own, free from James's influence. The single threat James made was insufficient to prove an 'overmastering influence.'
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the high evidentiary standard required to invalidate a will on grounds of testamentary incapacity or undue influence. The court strongly prioritizes the testimony of disinterested professionals who observed the testator at the time of execution over both circumstantial evidence of past cognitive decline and post-hoc expert analysis. It clarifies that a 'weakened intellect' for undue influence requires more than isolated incidents of forgetfulness or confusion. This ruling makes it more difficult for will contestants to succeed if credible, contemporaneous evidence of the testator's competence exists, reinforcing the legal system's deference to a testator's final expressed wishes.
