Last Fall I was invited to a community fair and asked to sit at a table to answer questions about estate planning. The folks asking the questions were surprised to have the wealth they did and concerned with what their progeny might do once they left it behind.
Last week we wrote about the adult child who sold her mom’s house and spent the proceeds. This week brings us a decade long battle over which will was valid. It illustrates how death can sometimes unleash epic battles that no one expected and may suggest that trusts are a way to avoid years of probate litigation and mountains of legal fees.
Naomi Cherup died in June 2015 at age 92. She left two daughters and a son. In 2008 Naomi prepared a will. A year later her son moved in with her. One daughter lived across town and the other in Virginia. Six weeks after Naomi died her daughters presented the 2008 will. A month later the son produced a 2012 revised will with a revocable trust. In Pennsylvania the Register of Wills is the place which initially decides which will is valid and in December 2020 the Register approved the 2012. The report found that Naomi was affected by weakening intellect but that the evidence did not sustain the assertion that she was incapacitated when she signed the 2012 document revoking the 2008 will. The burden was on the daughters to show by clear evidence that the 2012 instruments were executed during Naomi’s incapacity or were the product of undue influence by her son. Naomi’s physician and the attorney who prepared the 2012 will and trust both testified as to her capacity.
The second objection to the 2012 documents was undue influence. Under Estate of Ross 462 A.2d 780 (Pa.Super. 1983) the Register noted there was evidence of weakened intellect. Moreover, the son had shown abuse of a confidential relationship by securing a power of attorney from Naomi, changing the locks to the house they occupied, spending money freely using her assets and acting to otherwise restrict access to her friends and family. But the Register found the 2012 estate plan did not really benefit him more than the 2008 will. That’s a required condition for undue influence to be found.
These rulings were contested and the Allegheny judge assigned to review the Register’s ruling assigned the case to mediation. That failed and the case sat undecided for 32 months. The judge issued an order affirming the Register on the date he retired in 2024. The President judge of Orphans’ Court observed that the prior trial judge had not reviewed the record before the Register. She did that and reversed the order adopting the 2012 estate plan and re-instated the 2008 will. The son appealed that order to the Superior Court.
This reversal and re-instatement of the 2008 will by the President Judge concluded there was an absence of testamentary capacity by 2012 and that the undue influence elements had been met. The Superior Court affirms the capacity noting that there is a heavy burden to overcome a trial court determination. On the undue influence side, it appears that Register said there was no substantial benefit while conceding the existence of undue influence. Meanwhile, at footnote 12 the Register states that the appellant/son did get a substantial benefit in that he had received “advancements” of $1.6 million. How that was paid to him and whether it was discharged by the 2012 documents seems unclear.
We don’t know the size of the estate and the procedural history is best characterized as “murky.” But what is clear is a decade of litigation, expert witnesses, hundreds of documents, days of testimony and two flatly inconsistent trial court rulings on the same facts. No parent would want to be underwriting such a fight with a lifetime of savings intended to “support the family.”
Here’s In re: The Estate of Naomi Cherup 480 WDA 2025 (June 30, 2026)