Estate of Anna Marie Leipold, Appeal of: Hines, S.

208 A.3d 507
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 23, 2019
Docket1192 WDA 2018
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 208 A.3d 507 (Estate of Anna Marie Leipold, Appeal of: Hines, S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Estate of Anna Marie Leipold, Appeal of: Hines, S., 208 A.3d 507 (Pa. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

OPINION BY SHOGAN, J.:

Scott M. Hines and Kelly A. Schueltz ("Appellants") appeal from the July 19, 2018 order that denied their petition for a judicial sale of real property that was part of the estate of Appellants' deceased mother, Anna Marie Leipold. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

The orphans' court provided the following relevant background:

This matter is before this Court regarding an appeal of an order issued by this Court on July 19, 2018, which denied the Petition for Judicial Sale of Real Estate in this matter filed by Appellants Scott M. Hines and Kelly A. Schueltz, Administrators of the Estate of Anna Marie Leipold.
The estate of Anna Marie Leipold contains real property located at 444 North Market Street, Ligonier, Pennsylvania, 15658 which is presently subject to a mortgage with Quicken Loans [Inc.] [ 1 ] consisting of an outstanding balance of approximately $ 77,129.41 at the time of death of the decedent. Subsequent to their appointment as administrators, [Appellants] received an offer of $ 82,000.00 for the sale of the property, and requested court approval for the judicial sale of the property, as the selling price would not be sufficient to satisfy the mortgage lien and outstanding claims against the property.
[Appellants] requested the sale pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3353, which allows the [c]ourt to authorize sales of encumbered or otherwise unavailable real or personal property for the proper administration and distribution of the estate.
* * *
Here, Quicken Loans, the mortgage holder and Respondent [objected to the petition for judicial sale] at time of presentation of [Appellants' petition].
* * *
[Appellants] would argue that the sale would be in the interest of the proper administration and distribution of the estate[.] [Appellants] cite in their [petition for judicial sale] only to a hardship in maintaining the property over time and/or difficulty in finding a buyer. These concerns are not out of the ordinary in the case of any estate involving real property, and they do not justify the exceptional relief of a judicial sale over the express and continuing objection over the primary lienholder of the at-issue mortgage. The Court simply cannot order a free and clear sale of the property without the consent of the mortgagee pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 335[7](b)[.]

*510 Orphans' Court Order Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), 8/27/18, at 1-2 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The orphans' court denied Appellants' petition, and Appellants filed a timely appeal. Both the orphans' court and Appellants complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellants raise the following issue for this Court's consideration: "Is a judicial sale under 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3353 permissible over the objection of a secured mortgagee?" Appellants' Brief at 4. After careful review, we answer this question in the affirmative.

We review a decision of the orphans' court under the following standard:

Our standard of review of the findings of an Orphans' Court is deferential.
When reviewing a decree entered by the Orphans' Court, this Court must determine whether the record is free from legal error and the court's factual findings are supported by the evidence. Because the Orphans' Court sits as the fact-finder, it determines the credibility of the witnesses and, on review, we will not reverse its credibility determinations absent an abuse of that discretion.
However, we are not constrained to give the same deference to any resulting legal conclusions.
In re Estate of Harrison , 745 A.2d 676 , 678-79 (Pa. Super. 2000), appeal denied , 563 Pa. 646 , 758 A.2d 1200 (2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "The Orphans' Court decision will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying the correct principles of law." In re Estate of Luongo , 823 A.2d 942 , 951 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied , 577 Pa. 722 , 847 A.2d 1287 (2003).

In re Estate of Whitley , 50 A.3d 203 , 206-207 (Pa. Super. 2012). This Court's standard of review of questions of law is de novo , and the scope of review is plenary, as we may review the entire record in making our determination. Kripp v. Kripp , 578 Pa. 82 , 849 A.2d 1159 , 1164 n.5 (2004). When we review questions of law, our standard of review is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law. Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. , 746 A.2d 1118 , 1120 (Pa. Super. 1999) ( en banc ).

Appellants cite to In re Estate of Landis , 85 A.3d 506 (Pa. Super. 2014), in support of their argument that an orphans' court may permit a judicial sale of real property encumbered by a mortgage. Appellants' Brief at 10. Appellants assert that such a sale renders the property free and clear of any liens or encumbrances, which then attach solely to the proceeds of the sale.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re: J.P.D., Appeal of: J.P.D.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2025
In Re: Guardianship of: H.T.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2023
In Re: L.G. Trust, Appeal of: Wilmington Trust
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2022
Estate of Casimir Szafara, Appeal of: Szafara, K.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2021
In Re: Estate and Trust of M.A.Turner Liverant
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2021
Estate of Anna Marie Leipold
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2021
In Re: McCrum, W., Appeal of: McCrum, A.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
In Re: Thomson, G.,Appeal of: Thomson-Caliendo, J.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
208 A.3d 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-anna-marie-leipold-appeal-of-hines-s-pasuperct-2019.