Legal Opinion

In re Estate of Peles

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 14, 1999PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Commonwealth v. BurnsworthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Bamber v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  3. Commonwealth v. DavisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. In Re Estate of BankovichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. In Re Estate of SimpsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In Re: Estate of: Ruhlman, K. Appeal of: Ruhlman,DSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
  2. In Re: Estate of McLeod, K.S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. In Re: Estate of: Ruhlman, K. Appeal of: Ruhlman,DSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
  4. In re Estate of Williams, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API