In re Estate of Peles
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
KELLY, J.:
¶ 1 Appellants ask us to determine whether the trial court erred in affirming the decree of the Register of Wills, which refused to probate a later codicil to a will already admitted to probate. Specifically, Appellants claim that the three-month time limitation set forth in 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3138 should not have barred probate of the later codicil. We hold that the later codicil was barred under Section 3138 of the Probate Code. Accordingly, we affirm.
¶ 2 The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows. On May 28, 1958, Mary J. Peles, the testatrix, executed a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BurnsworthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Bamber v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Commonwealth v. DavisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- In Re Estate of BankovichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- In Re Estate of SimpsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In Re: Estate of: Ruhlman, K. Appeal of: Ruhlman,DSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
- In Re: Estate of McLeod, K.S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- In Re: Estate of: Ruhlman, K. Appeal of: Ruhlman,DSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
- In re Estate of Williams, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County2014