Estate of: Valeriy Krichmar Appeal of: Krichmar, G ( 2015 )

J-A17009-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ESTATE OF: VALERIY KRICHMAR, DEC'D. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: GALINA KRICHMAR AND
DANIEL KRICHMAR
No. 1510 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Decree April 28, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 545 DE of 2011
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED DECEMBER 01, 2015
Galina and Daniel Krichmar (“Galina” or “Daniel,” individually, or “the
Krichmars,” collectively) appeal from the final decree, entered April 28,
2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, that denied, by
operation of law, exceptions to the adjudication entered by the orphans’
court on November 27, 2013. The court’s adjudication confirmed, as
modified, the account of Galina Krichmar, administratrix of the Estate of
Valeriy Krichmar. The case arises from the death of Valeriy Krichmar, who
died on January 31, 2005, in a fire that also took the life of his father, Boris
Krichmar. Boris and Valeriy died intestate. Valeriy was unmarried. Appellant
Daniel Krichmar is the brother of Boris, uncle of Valeriy, and intestate heir of
J-A17009-15
the Estate of Valeriy Krichmar.1 Appellant Galina Krichmar is the daughter of
Daniel and is administratrix of the Estate of Valeriy Krichmar. 2 In this
appeal, the Krichmars present two arguments:
Did the lower court err by capriciously and deliberately
disallowing undisputed disbursements that a person of ordinary
intelligence could not ignore, discount or disapprove and by
surcharging her for said items?
Did the lower court properly hold that life insurance proceeds
were the property of the estate of the insured, who, according to
the certified death certificate, died before the beneficiary?
Krichmars’ Brief at 5. Based upon the following, we reverse the court’s
decree and remand for further proceedings.
Boris’ and Valeriy’s estates are intertwined, and were considered
together by the orphans’ court. We likewise have considered these appeals
together. The companion appeal/cross appeal regarding Boris’ estate is filed
at In re Estate of Boris Krichmar, ___ A.3d ___ [1511 EDA 2014; 1753
EDA 2014] (Pa. Super. 2015) (unpublished memorandum). Although the
appeal in Boris’ estate was listed consecutive to the instant appeal, we have
addressed the appeal in Boris’ estate first, as that appeal is dispositive of the
present appeal.
____________________________________________
1
Under 20 Pa.C. S. § 2103(5), Daniel is an intestate heir of Valeriy’s estate,
as is his daughter, Appellant Galina Krichmar, but under 20 Pa.C.S. §
2104(1) Daniel receives the entire share as long as he is living.
2
Galina is also the former administratrix of the Estate of Boris Krichmar.
-2-
J-A17009-15
We first address the second question raised in this appeal, regarding
life insurance proceeds. Because Galina operated under the belief that
Valeriy survived Boris based on the time of death reflected in their
respective death certificates, her account showed the $140,915.00 life
insurance proceeds as an asset. The orphans’ court, however, determined
the life insurance proceeds belonged in Boris’ estate and, consequently,
surcharged Galina and ordered the proceeds be returned to Boris’ estate.
In our decision in In re Estate of Boris Krichmar, we found merit in
the Krichmars’ arguments that: (1) Manuel Spigler, former attorney of Anna
Guettel,3 adminstratrix D.B.N. of the Estate of Boris Krichmar, had no
standing to call EMT Joanne Conti as a witness on the issue of life insurance
proceeds or advocate that Boris’ estate was entitled to these proceeds, and
(2) the court erred in denying the Krichmars’ counsel’s continuance request
and closing the record in her absence.4
____________________________________________
3
Anna Guettel is the surviving spouse of Boris Krichmar. On June 23, 2011,
this Court held that a valid marriage existed between Guettel and Boris, and
that Guettel did not desert Boris prior to his death. See Estate of Boris
Krichmar, 31 A.3d 752 (Pa. Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum).
4
The Krichmars make the same arguments in this appeal as in their appeal
in Boris’ estate regarding the issue of life insurance proceeds, specifically:
(A) Spigler had no standing to call a witness or advocate a position on the
issue, (B) Conti’s testimony was incompetent and, therefore, insufficient to
raise an issue, and (C) the court erroneously conducted a final hearing and
closed the record in the absence of counsel, who could not attend. See The
Krichmars’ Brief at ii.
-3-
J-A17009-15
We reversed and remanded for a determination whether the life
insurance proceeds are an asset of Boris’ estate or Valeriy’s estate.
Furthermore, we instructed the orphans’ court to consider the applicability of
the Simultaneous Death Act, 20 Pa.C.S. § 8504, without reference to Conti’s
testimony unless presented by a party with standing. We directed the
orphans’ court to determine if any amended accountings should be filed, if
the parties are unable to reach the settlement suggested at the February 7,
2013 hearing. See Estate of Boris Krichmar, supra.The issue of which estate is entitled to the life insurance proceeds is
critical to the accuracy of the account in Valeriy’s estate. Furthermore, it is
premature for this Court to address the remaining issue raised in this
appeal, regarding allowed disbursements, because the accounts may have to
be restated.
Accordingly, consistent with our decision in In re Estate of Boris
Krichmar, we reverse the court’s decree and remand to the orphans’ court
for further proceedings.
Decree reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
-4-
J-A17009-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/1/2015
-5-