Opinion
826 EDA 2021 J-A20039-22
03-21-2023
DENIA EDWARDS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS A. EDWARDS v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY Appellant
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Appeal from the Order Entered November 2, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 181003685.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
BEFORE: STABILE, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.[*]
OPINION
PELLEGRINI, J.
Under the relation back doctrine, our courts, in certain situations, have validated the acts of a personal representative of an estate that predate their official appointment. In this interlocutory appeal by permission, we consider whether the doctrine applies when a plaintiff timely files an action on behalf of an estate but does not apply to be appointed the personal representative until after the statute of limitations has run.
Finding that the doctrine applies in such situations, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) denied the motion for summary judgment filed by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (Norfolk Southern) to dismiss the action filed by Denia Edwards (Edwards), personal representative of the estate of Douglas A. Edwards, her late husband's estate. Norfolk Southern appeals from that order and argues that the relation back doctrine is inapplicable here because Edwards did not apply to be the personal representative of the estate until two months after the expiration of the statute of limitations. After review, we affirm and hold that her appointment as personal representative of her late husband's estate relates back to her filing the complaint.
I.
On October 27, 2015, Douglas A. Edwards died. On October 26, 2018, with one day left before the statute of limitations expired, Edwards filed an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60, alleging that her late husband's renal cell cancer was caused by his two-decade-plus employment with Norfolk Southern. The complaint named the plaintiff as "Denia Edwards, personal representative for the estate of Douglas A. Edwards." At the time, however, Edwards had neither applied for nor been appointed the personal representative of her late husband's estate, even though she was named the executor in his last will and testament. On December 27, 2018, two months after the statute of limitations for a FELA action had run, Edwards finally applied to be the personal representative of her late husband's estate in Mercer County, West Virginia, which is where she and her late husband lived.
The statute of limitations for bringing a FELA action is three years. See 45 U.S.C. § 56 ("No action shall be maintained under this chapter unless commenced within three years from the day the cause of action accrued.").
Under West Virginia law, "[a] person appointed to be the executor of a will shall not have the powers of executor until he or she qualifies by taking an oath and giving bond, unless not required to post bond by § 44-1-8 of this code… ." W.Va. Code § 44-1-1.
Norfolk Southern filed preliminary objections for lack of personal jurisdiction, which were denied after Edwards filed an amended complaint.Norfolk Southern then filed an answer and new matter raising the statute of limitations as a defense, following which it moved for summary judgment on that basis asserting that the action was time-barred because Edwards did not apply to be the personal representative until after the statute of limitations had expired. Edwards countered that her appointment as personal representative related back to her filing the complaint. The trial court agreed and denied summary judgment. After the trial court refused to certify its order as an appealable interlocutory order, Norfolk Southern petitioned this Court for permission to appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 1311(b), which we granted.
Norfolk Southern properly did not raise their statute of limitations defense in their preliminary objections. See Sayers v. Heritage Valley Medical Group, Inc., 247 A.3d 1155, 1159 (Pa. Super. 2021) ("Generally, a statute of limitations defense is properly raised in new matter and not in preliminary objections."); Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030(a) ("[A]ll affirmative defenses including but not limited to the defenses of ... statute of limitations ... shall be pleaded in a responsive pleading under the heading 'New Matter' ").
Norfolk Southern then filed this appeal to argue that summary judgment should have been granted because Edwards waited until after the statute of limitations to apply to be appointed the personal representative of her late husband's estate.
II.
We begin by reviewing the relation back doctrine and the key cases addressing the doctrine. Generally, "all actions that survive a decedent must be brought by or against the personal representative" and "a decedent's estate cannot be a party to litigation unless a personal representative exists." Salvadia v. Askbrook, 923 A.2d 436, 440 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). The relation back doctrine, however, will sometimes be applied as an exception to the general rule. As we have explained:
Simply stated, the doctrine of relation back as applied to cases where an estate is a party means that the courts under certain circumstances will validate the acts of the personal representative of the estate which preceded the date of his official appointment. Thus, where a plaintiff, acting as the personal representative of an estate, initiates an action before the statute of limitations has run, but also before his or her appointment as personal representative has been finalized, the doctrine of relation back may be applied in appropriate circumstances to validate the filing of the action, even though the plaintiff's appointment is not finalized until after the limitations period has expired.Prevish v. Northwest Med. Ctr. Oil City Campus, 692 A.2d 192, 201 (Pa. Super. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
In the late 1970s, the doctrine was applied in three cases in which the plaintiffs applied to be the personal representative but were not formally appointed until after the statute had run. The first case was McGuire v. Erie Lackawanna Ry. Co., 385 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 1978). In McGuire, the plaintiff petitioned to be the administrator of his daughter's estate after she was hit and killed by a train. While he paid the filing fee, the letters of administration were not issued because he did not post the bond. Before the statute of limitations ran, he filed a survival action alleging that he was the administrator of his daughter's estate. Three weeks later, he finally posted the bond and was issued the letters of administration. The defendant moved for summary judgment because the statute of limitations had run before the letters were issued. The trial court denied summary judgment and certified its order as involving a controlling question of law.
On appeal, we held that the father's appointment as administrator related back to when he filed the action. We began by noting that the relation back doctrine had generally been limited to actions that benefit an estate. We found this test too limited, however, because it did not answer whether a railroad should have to pay an asset to an estate that did not exist at the time the limitations period expired. Id. at 467-68. As a result, we suggested the better test was "whether in all circumstances 'relation back' will achieve a just result." Id. at 468.
To answer what a just result would be in the case, we emphasized that the purpose of statutes of limitations is to "expedite litigation and thus to discourage delay and the presentation of stale claims" and "promote finality and stability." Id. (citations omitted). With this in mind, we found that the plaintiff had done enough within the statutory period to fulfill the purposes of the statute of limitations.
When the complaint was filed, it represented a timely statement of every element of the claim, except in one respect: the plaintiff appellee had not been formally named administrator. That deficiency, however, was minimal. At the time the complaint was filed, that is, within the statutory period, [the plaintiff] had applied for letters of administration. Under the provisions of the Decedents, Estates & Fiduciaries Code, Act of June 30, 1972, P.L. 508, No. 164, [§] 2, 20 P.S. [§] 3155(b)(3), [the plaintiff] as decedent's father had a prior right to be appointed; having applied to be appointed, he was unlikely not to pursue his application to completion. Nor had anyone else applied. The only thing that held up the issuance of letters was appellee's failure to post a nominal bond of $1000. While we grant that the bond represents something of a contingency, we nonetheless find that in the circumstances, appellee's appointment as administrator was substantially assured at the time the complaint was filed, that is, within the statutory period of limitations.McGuire, 385 A.2d at 468 (footnote omitted).
We then noted that this reasoning was similar to that used in Beckman v. Owens, 5 A.2d 626 (Pa. Super. 1939), a case in which we allowed a suit against an estate even though the executor named in the decedent's will was not granted testamentary letters until after the statute ran. In so noting, we quoted Beckman's holding that
(A)n executor "derives his authority to act from the will. The granting of letters testamentary by the register of wills is a pro forma act, to give effect to the will of the testator." . . . "(P)arties, upon whom is a necessity of present action, may proceed on the presumption that (the executor appointed) will accept, and their action is valid until he actually renounces, or they have notice that he will not accept. (")McGuire, 385 A.2d at 468 (quoting Beckman, 5 A.2d at 627) (omission in original) (internal citation omitted).
We then contrasted its facts with those in an earlier case in which this Court declined to apply the relation back doctrine. In Lovejoy v. Georgeff, 303 A.2d 501 (Pa. Super. 1973), the plaintiff timely filed a writ of summons on behalf of his injured son against the father of the deceased driver as "administrator" of the driver's estate. The plaintiff applied for the issuance of letters of administration for the estate but the letters were not issued until after the statute of limitations had run. We distinguished these facts by noting that
when the [writ of summons] was filed, the identity of the administrator was uncertain; either parent [for the deceased driver] could have renounced the right to letters and the other accepted, or both could have renounced. At the time the statute ran, therefore, there could have been no such presumption as in [Beckman] and as in the present case, that the father would be administrator. Thus it was quite possible that the [writ of summons] had identified as a party someone who was not, and would not become, a party, so that the [writ of summons] might have been served on the wrong person entirely. This possibility introduced the sort of instability not present in Beckman or the present case, and was fatal.McGuire, 385 A.2d at 469 (footnotes omitted). Thus, unlike Lovejoy, the McGuire court concluded that the defendant railroad could "proceed on the presumption that" the plaintiff's appointment as administrator would be completed. Id. at 468-69. For that reason, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant "was not affected with the sort of instability that statutes of limitations seek to preclude." Id. at 469.
We reached a similar result a year later in D'Orazio v. Locust Lake Vill., Inc., 406 A.2d 550 (Pa. Super. 1979). There, the decedent was a child who drowned in defendants' lake. Before the statute of limitations ran, the decedent's mother filed (1) a petition for letters of administration and (2) a complaint against the defendant, naming herself administrator of her son's estate. The mother assumed that letters had been issued because she had obtained the bond and paid its premiums for several years. After the statute of limitations had run, however, she learned that the letters had not been issued because she did not execute the bond. Upon learning this, she signed the bond and was issued the letters. The trial court, however, dismissed the complaint because the letter had not been acquired until after the statute of limitations had run.
On appeal, we reversed and held that our decision in McGuire compelled finding the relation back doctrine applied, explaining:
Although [the plaintiff] here was finally granted letters much longer after the statute's running than was [the plaintiff in McGuire], this fact does not alter our disposition. The crucial factors are that letters had been requested and the action commenced within the statutory period, and [the plaintiff's] appointment as administratrix, under the circumstances of this case, "was substantially assured at the time the complaint was filed, ... within the statutory period of limitations."D'Orazio, 406 A.2d at 552 (quoting McGuire, 385 A.2d at 468).
Not long after D'Orazio, our Supreme Court addressed a similar scenario in Estate of Gasbarini v. Medical Ctr. of Beaver Cnty., 409 A.2d 343 (Pa. 1979). In Gasbarini, the decedent died while a patient in the defendant hospital and under the care of the defendant physicians. The decedent's widow promptly applied for letters of administration but her counsel failed to post bond. Counsel later filed a writ of summons against the defendants, naming the decedent's estate as plaintiff. Counsel again named the estate as plaintiff when he later filed a complaint asserting wrongful death and survival actions. Defendants responded by filing preliminary objections alleging that the estate was not a proper party. When counsel failed to respond, the complaint was dismissed.
Unbeknownst to the widow, counsel was suspended and later disbarred. As a result, she hired new counsel and was named administrator of her husband's estate after posting the bond. Counsel then petitioned to reinstate the complaint and amend its caption to add the widow as the estate's personal representative, which the trial court granted. On appeal, we reversed and ordered that the complaint be dismissed. On allowance of appeal, however, our Supreme Court adopted our reasoning in McGuire in applying the relation back doctrine in the widow's favor.
The original complaint, filed by [prior counsel], made clear that the action was based upon our wrongful death and survival statutes. Further, as previously mentioned, the complaint made clear that [decedent's widow] was bringing this action in her capacity as administratrix of the decedent's estate.
* * *
We believe the instant case is on all fours with McGuire and we believe its reasoning is persuasive. Instantly, the only deficiency in [plaintiff's] complaint was the fact she had not yet been named administratrix of decedent's estate. All other requirements,
however, had been completed within a short time period after decedent's death and within the applicable statute of limitations for either a wrongful death or survivor action. As we believe the appointment of appellant as administratrix should relate back to the … date on which the complaint was filed, we find that neither action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.Id. at 346-347.
In Wilkes-Barre Gen. Hospital v. Lesho, 435 A.2d 1340 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981), our Commonwealth Court considered a scenario where-unlike McGuire, D'Orazio and Gasbarini-the decedent's plaintiffs waited until after the statute of limitations had run to apply to be the personal representatives of the estate. There, the plaintiffs' daughter allegedly died of medical malpractice. Two months later, the plaintiffs petitioned to settle her estate but did not apply for letters of administration. The plaintiffs then filed a complaint in the Arbitration Panels for Health Care against the defendants, identifying themselves in the caption and body as individuals and administrators of their daughter's estate. While letters of administration were eventually granted, the plaintiffs neither applied for nor were granted the letters until after the statute of limitations had run. The defendants moved for summary judgment but the arbitrator found that the relation back doctrine applied.
On appeal, the defendants argued that McGuire, D'Orazio and Gasbarini supported reversal because the plaintiffs in those cases applied for letters of administration before the statute of limitations had run, thus giving "substantial assurance that the letters would be granted to the person alleging his or her fiduciary capacity in the pleading." Lesho, 435 A.2d at 1342.
Nevertheless, the Commonwealth Court held that the reasoning used in McGuire and reiterated in Gasbarini applied with equal force to the plaintiff parents in Lesho, explaining:
Absolutely nothing was changed in the [plaintiffs'] complaint by virtue of letters of administration having been granted to them after the statute of limitations had run. From the time the original complaint was filed, the [defendants] were aware that they were being sued for their alleged negligence resulting in the death of a named decedent. Every element necessary to establish the two causes of action against the [defendants] was set forth in the complaint, including the erroneous fact that the [plaintiffs] had been appointed administrators of their daughter's estate.
* * *
In any event, it is our opinion that by permitting the doctrine to apply to the circumstances of this case, the acts of the administrators will have been validated, a just result will have been achieved, the estate will have been benefited and a remedy will not have been lost. Neither will the objectives of the statute of limitations have been disturbed.Id. at 1343.
Finally, this Court revisited the relation back doctrine in the context of a survival action in Prevish v. Northwest Med. Ctr. Oil City Campus, 692 A.2d 192, 201 (Pa. Super. 1997) (en banc). There, the plaintiff's wife allegedly suffered a stroke and paralysis because of defendants' medical malpractice. After she died, the plaintiff filed a writ of summons against the defendants, with a caption naming the plaintiff as his wife's estate. In his subsequent complaint filed after the statute of limitations had run, the plaintiff listed himself as the plaintiff and alleged that he had been appointed the executor of the estate. The defendants filed preliminary objections to strike the complaint because the plaintiff had not obtained consent or leave to amend the complaint's caption to correct of the name of a party. The trial court agreed and declined to apply the relation back doctrine because (1) the writ of summons named the estate as plaintiff, and (2) no personal representative had been designated until after the statute had run.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court should have allowed him to correct the caption to reflect his appointment as executor of his wife's estate. To address this contention, the Prevish court reviewed all the above cases and found them distinguishable.
In McGuire, D'Orazio, and Lesho, a survival action was commenced by the timely filing of a complaint the caption of which identified the plaintiff by name as the administrator of the decedent's estate. In Gasbarini, a survival action was commenced by the timely filing of a complaint the caption of which named the decedent's estate as the plaintiff, but the body of which explained that the plaintiff was in fact the administratrix of the estate. In each case the designation of the plaintiff as administrator/administratrix was premature, as certain steps remained to be taken which were not accomplished until after the statute of limitations had run. In all four cases, however, the defendants were notified, before the statute of limitations had run, of the fact that an action had been filed against them by a named individual who was, at least putatively, the personal representative of the decedent's estate. Insofar as the commencement of the action was concerned, nothing remained to be done after the limitations period had expired but to formalize the plaintiff's previously asserted appointment as personal representative.Prevish, 692 A.2d at 204 (emphasis in original).
With this in mind, the Prevish court went on to find that the relation back doctrine did not apply to the plaintiff's actions because
…[t]he writ of summons was the only document filed before the limitations period expired, and its caption identifies the estate of the decedent as the plaintiff. Such a writ is, of course, a nullity. Moreover, the writ does not identify the executor of the estate, nor does it inform the defendants that there is, even potentially, an executor (that is, that the decedent died testate). Concerning the parties' relationship, these facts evidence "the sort of instability that statutes of limitation seek to preclude." McGuire, supra.
[Plaintiff] has cited no case, and we are aware of none, in which the relation back doctrine was applied to ratify, post-appointment, the attempted commencement of an action by a personal representative whose existence was in no way suggested by the pleading that he filed. We decline to extend the doctrine to encompass such a situation. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing the complaint. Id. at 204-05.
III.
On appeal, Norfolk Southern argues that Edwards lacked the capacity to bring her action on behalf of her late husband's estate since a FELA action can be maintained only by either the injured person or, if the person is deceased, their personal representative. See 45 U.S.C. § 59. It emphasizes that Edwards did not apply to be the personal representative of her late husband's estate until after the statute of limitations had run. Because she failed to do so, Norfolk Southern argues that the complaint was a nullity because Edwards lacked standing to pursue claims on behalf of the estate at the time when she filed the complaint.
"Any right of action given by this chapter to a person suffering injury shall survive to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee, and, if none, then of such employee's parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, but in such cases there shall be only one recovery for the same injury." 45 U.S.C. § 59.
As for the relation back doctrine, Norfolk Southern asserts that it does not apply here. It argues that McGuire, D'Orazio and Gasbarini support reversal because the plaintiffs in those cases applied to be the estates' personal representatives before the statute of limitations ran. On this point, Norfolk Southern highlights the D'Orazio court's statement that the "crucial factors" in allowing the relation back doctrine in that case were "that letters [of administration] had been requested and the action commenced within the statutory period," thus substantially assuring the plaintiff's appointment as the estate's executor. See D'Orazio, 406 A.2d at 552. Further, Norfolk Southern contends the presumption that one will be appointed an estate's executor attaches only at the time the application is made. See McGuire, 385 A.2d at 468-69.
Turning to Edwards, while conceding that a decedent's estate cannot be a party to litigation unless a personal representative exists, she contends that the relation back doctrine applies here. First, she notes that the plaintiffs in McGuire, D'Orazio and Gasbarini all died intestate. Here, in contrast, Edwards was named the executor in her late husband's last will and testament.
Next, she notes that in the most "on point" case on this matter-Lesho-the Commonwealth Court rejected the very same argument that Norfolk Southern raises here: that McGuire, D'Orazio and Gasbarini stand for the proposition that the relation back doctrine applies only when the plaintiff applies to be the personal representative before the statute of limitations has run. Rejecting this argument, the Lesho court concluded that the reasoning used in McGuire and Gasbarini supported finding that the relation back doctrine could be applied even the plaintiff waits until after the statute of limitations had run to be appointed the personal representative. Edwards further emphasizes that like the plaintiffs in McGuire, D'Orazio and Gasbarini, she identified herself in the complaint's caption as the personal representative of her late husband's estate, thus notifying Norfolk Southern before the statute of limitations had run that an action had been filed against it by a person who was, at least putatively, the personal representative of the decedent's estate.
IV.
After review, the trial court did not err in denying summary judgment and concluding that the relation back doctrine applied here.
Our standard of review of an order granting or denying summary judgment is well-settled:
We view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law will summary judgment be entered. Our scope of review of a trial court's order granting or denying summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court's order will be reversed only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion.Siciliano v. Mueller, 149 A.3d 863, 864 (Pa. Super. 2016). Moreover, the standard or review for issues involving the interpretation of a statute of limitations is de novo and the scope of review is plenary. See Erie Ins. Exchange v. Bristol, 174 A.3d 578, 585 n.13 (2017).
First, just as we did in McGuire, we begin with the purpose of statutes of limitations to determine whether the relation back doctrine can be applied under these circumstances. "Generally speaking, statutes of limitations are rules of law that set time limits for bringing legal claims." Nicole B. v. Sch. Dist. Of Phila., 237 A.3d 986, 993-94 (Pa. 2020). "They serve several purposes: imposing finality on the litigation system; providing defendants with an end to their potential liability; and avoiding litigation of disputes involving stale evidence." Id. at 994. As this Court has long recognized, the "purpose of any statute of limitations is to expedite litigation and thus discourage delay and the presentation of stale claims which may greatly prejudice the defense of such claims." McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia, 888 A.2d 211, 222 (Pa. 2005) (citation omitted).
In McGuire, D'Orazio, Gasbarini and Lesho, our courts noted two main reasons why application of the relation back doctrine did not contravene the purpose of statutes of limitations. First, in each of those cases, the complaint was timely filed within the statute of limitations and set out every element of the plaintiffs' claims. Thus, except for the plaintiffs' formal appointment as personal representative, the defendants in those cases were put on notice before the statute of limitations had run that "an action had been filed against them by a named individual who was, at least putatively, the personal representative of the decedent's estate." Prevish, 692 A.2d at 204. Thus, at that stage in those cases, the only thing that remained for the plaintiff to do was to formalize their previously asserted appointment as personal representative. Id.
The same applies here. Edwards timely filed her FELA action and set out all the elements of her claims before the statute of limitations had run, thus putting Norfolk Southern on notice that they were being sued. Critically, just as the Lesho court recognized, nothing changed concerning those claims by virtue of Edwards later being formally appointed the personal representative. See Lesho, 435 A.2d at 1343 ("Absolutely nothing was changed in the [plaintiffs'] complaint by virtue of letters of administration having been granted to them after the statute of limitations had run.").
Second, in each of the four cases, the complaint listed the plaintiff as the personal representative of the estate in the caption or alleged that the plaintiff was the administrator of the estate. See McGuire, 385 A.2d at 467; D'Orazio, 406 A.2d at 551; Gasbarini, 409 A.2d at 345; Lesho, 435 A.2d at 1341. Likewise, in both her original and amended complaints, Edwards listed the plaintiff in the caption as "DENIA EDWARDS, Personal Representative for the Estate of Douglas A. Edwards." Further, she averred in both complaints that she was the personal representative of the estate. See Complaint, 10/26/18, ¶ 2; Amended Complaint, 12/17/18, ¶ 2. As a result, while she had not yet applied to be the personal representative of the estate, the complaint put Norfolk Southern on notice that Edwards was bringing the action in her capacity as personal representative of the estate.
On this point, we do not find it fatal to her claims that Edwards waited until after the statute of limitations had run to apply to be the personal representative of her late husband's estate. In McGuire, D'Orazio and Gasbarini, despite each of the decedents dying intestate, it was "substantially assured" that each of the plaintiffs would be appointed the personal representative of the estate. In McGuire, the appointment was held up by the plaintiff failing to post the bond; in D'Orazio, it was the plaintiff's failure to execute the bond; and in Gasbarini, it was plaintiff's counsel failing to post bond. In each case, there was no dispute that the plaintiff would be appointed the estate's personal representative, as the only thing delaying the appointment was the oversight of paying or executing the bond for the letters of administration.
While this case differs from those cases in that the decedent died testate, there was still no real dispute that Edwards would be appointed the personal representative of her late husband's estate since she was named executor in her late husband's last will and testament. Under West Virginia law, the only thing she needed to do to be appointed the personal representative was file the application of fiduciaries and take an oath in the county in which her late husband's last will and testament had been recorded. See W.Va. Code § 44-1-1. Given that Edwards was (1) named the executor in her husband's will, and (2) listed herself as the plaintiff in the timely filed complaint, Norfolk Southern could "proceed on the presumption" that she would seek appointment as personal representative of her late husband's estate. Thus, just as the McGuire court concluded, we find that "the relationship between the parties was not affected with the sort of instability that statutes of limitations seek to preclude." McGuire, 385 A.2d at 469.
Edwards did not need to post bond because she was the sole beneficiary of her late husband. See W.Va. Code § 44-1-8(b).
As noted, citing McGuire, Norfolk Southern asserts that the presumption that Edwards would seek appointment as personal representative could attach only if she made a timely application. Based on our reading, however, McGuire states no such thing.
To recap, in McGuire, we held that the defendant railroad could presume that the plaintiff would be appointed the personal representative of his daughter's estate because he had applied for letters of administration and had a prior right to be appointed under statute. Id. at 468. For support, the
McGuire court likened its reasoning to that in Beckman in which this Court held that a creditor of the decedent could file suit against the executor appointed in the decedent's will prior to the probate of the will and issuance of letters testamentary. As noted, the McGuire court quoted the Beckman court's holding that an executor "derives his authority to act from the will. The granting of letters testamentary by the register of wills is a pro forma act, to give effect to the will of the testator." Id. at 468 (quoting Beckman, 5 A.2d at 627). The McGuire court further quoted Beckman's holding that the parties "may proceed on the presumption that (the executor appointed) will accept, and their action is valid until he actually renounces, or they have notice that he will not accept." Thus, as the above quoted sections show, the McGuire court was equating the plaintiff father in its case with an executor named in a decedent's will who is presumed to have accepted the appointment until that appointment is renounced.
Finally, we address two other arguments raised by Norfolk Southern. First, as noted, Norfolk Southern highlights that in D'Orazio, we stated that the "crucial factors" in applying the relation back doctrine in that case were that the plaintiff requested the letters of administration before the statute of limitations had run. See D'Orazio, 406 A.2d at 552. In that case, however, the plaintiff mother did not obtain the letters of administration until about a year-and-a-half after the statute had run, which was substantially longer than the delay in McGuire. Thus, read in context, the D'Orazio court's statement that it was "crucial" that the plaintiff request the letters before the statute had run was meant to answer the concern that the plaintiff mother was not granted the letters until "much longer after the statute's running than [the plaintiff in McGuire.]" Id.
Second, Norfolk Southern asserts that Lesho has no persuasive value because (1) it is a Commonwealth Court decision, and (2) its factually distinguishable because, unlike the defendants in Lesho, Norfolk Southern raises its statute of limitations defense at its first opportunity. The second point is well taken, since the Lesho court observed that none of the defendants denied that the plaintiffs were administrators of their daughter's estate until they were granted leave to file amended answers. See Lesho, 435 A.2d at 1343.
"Commonwealth Court decisions do not bind this Court, but we may consider them as persuasive authority." Cuth v. Cuth, 263 A.3d 1186, 1191 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted).
Before that observation, however, the Commonwealth Court made clear that its decision rested on the plaintiffs timely filing their complaint and putting the defendants on notice that they were sued by the plaintiffs in their capacity as the personal representatives of the decedent's estate.
It is true that in every case cited by [the defendants], where the [relation back] doctrine has been applied, an application for letters was made before the statute of limitations expired. Nevertheless, we feel compelled to apply the doctrine here because our analysis of the reasoning used in McGuire and reiterated in the [Gasbarini] demonstrates that it must likewise prevail here. Absolutely nothing was changed in the [plaintiffs'] complaint by
virtue of letters of administration having been granted to them after the statute of limitations had run. From the time the original complaint was filed, the [defendants] were aware that they were being sued for their alleged negligence resulting in the death of a named decedent. Every element necessary to establish the two causes of action against the [defendants] was set forth in the complaint, including the erroneous fact that the [plaintiffs] had been appointed administrators of their daughter's estate.Id.
Like the Commonwealth Court in Lesho, we read nothing in McGuire, D'Orazio or Gasbarini as precluding the conclusion that the trial court reached in this case. Indeed, Edwards was named the executor in her late husband's last will and testament and timely filed her FELA action in which she averred that she was the personal representative of her late husband's estate. Like the defendants in McGuire, D'Orazio, Gasbarini and Lesho, Norfolk Southern was notified before the statute of limitations had expired that an action had been filed against it by a plaintiff "who was, at least putatively, the personal representative of the decedent's estate." Prevish, 692 A.2d at 204. While it may be preferable that the plaintiff seek appointment before the statute runs, we do not find that failure to do so compels dismissal of a complaint when the plaintiff is the named executor and avers that she is the personal representative in the timely-filed complaint.
Order affirmed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge McCaffery joins the Opinion.
Judge Stabile files a Dissenting Opinion.
Judgment Entered.
DISSENTING OPINION
STABILE, J.
I respectfully dissent. When a plaintiff files a complaint or writ of summons on behalf of an estate within the applicable statute of limitations but has not yet been appointed as personal representative to do so, the action is considered a legal nullity, unless the plaintiff petitions within the statute of limitations for appointment as the personal representative of the estate and the appointment is substantially assured. See Estate of Gasbarini v. Medical Ctr. of Beaver Cnty., 409 A.2d 343 (Pa. 1979); D'Orazio v. Locust Lake Vill., Inc., 406 A.2d 550 (Pa. Super. 1979); McGuire v. Erie Lackawanna Ry. Co., 385 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 1978). The failure to both file the suit and petition for appointment as personal representative within the statute of limitations is fatal to the action. In the present case, Edwards fulfilled the first condition by filing a complaint prior to expiration of the statute identifying herself as personal representative of her late husband's estate. She failed, however, to satisfy the second condition by neglecting to file a petition for appointment as personal representative before the statute expired. As a result, the relation back doctrine does not rescue Edwards' action, and the civil action she filed was a legal nullity. The trial court erred by denying Norfolk Southern's motion for summary judgment.
See 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3153 (prescribing contents of petition for grant of letters testamentary when decedent dies testate or for grant of letters of administration when decedent dies intestate).
It is well-settled that "a dead man cannot be party to an action, and any such attempted proceeding is completely void and of no effect." Prevish v. Northwest Medical Center Oil City Campus, 692 A.2d 192, 201 (Pa. Super. 1997) (en banc). All actions that survive a decedent must be brought by or against the personal representative of the estate. Marzella v. King, 389 A.2d 659, 660-61 (Pa. Super. 1978). An action brought by or against an estate lacking a personal representative is void. Prevish, 692 A.2d at 201.
In limited circumstances, however, courts have applied an exception called the "relation back doctrine" to validate the acts of the personal representative which precede the date of her official appointment. Relation back applies when, before the statute of limitations expires, the plaintiff petitions for appointment as personal representative of the decedent's estate and files an action identifying herself as personal representative. McGuire, 385 A.2d at 468. Relation back applies even though the personal representative's appointment is not finalized, because her timely petition "substantially assure[s]" her appointment as personal representative. Id.
Here, Edwards filed a complaint within the statute of limitations purporting to identify herself as personal representative, but she failed to petition for appointment as personal representative before the statute expired. She waited two months after the statute expired before moving for appointment as personal representative. Nevertheless, the majority insists that relation back applies to the present case based on its study of Gasbarini, D'Orazio, McGuire, Prevish, and a Commonwealth Court decision, Wilkes-Barre Gen. Hospital v. Lesho, 435 A.2d 1340 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). See Majority Op. at 16-23 (discussion section). I am constrained to disagree with the majority's construction of these decisions.
In my view, the majority's decision runs afoul of the decision by our Supreme Court in Gasbarini and our own decisions in D'Orazio and McGuire. In each of these cases, the plaintiff filed a complaint or writ of summons within the statute of limitations that identified the plaintiff as the administrator of the decedent's estate. The plaintiff applied for letters of administration before the statute expired, but letters were not issued until after the statute expired due to the plaintiff's failure to post or execute a bond. All three decisions held that relation back applied because the plaintiff timely initiated the lawsuit and filed for letters before the statute expired.
The Supreme Court held in Gasbarini that relation back applied because the plaintiff timely filed a civil action and applied for letters within the statutory period. Only because the plaintiff satisfied both factors did the Court decide that her appointment as administrator was "substantially assured" at the time she filed her action. Id., 409 A.2d at 346. This Court's earlier decision in McGuire was cited at length in Gasbarini. Indeed, our Supreme Court held that "the instant case [Gasbarini] is on all fours with McGuire and . . . [McGuire's] reasoning is persuasive." Id. D'Orazio is congruent with Gasbarini as well, particularly wherein we stated:
Although [D'Orazio] was finally granted letters much longer after the statute's running than was Mr. McGuire, this fact does not alter our disposition. The crucial factors are that letters had been requested and the action commenced within the statutory period, and appellant's appointment as administratrix, under the circumstances of this case, "was substantially assured at the time the complaint was filed, ... within the statutory period of limitations.Id., 406 A.2d at 552 (emphasis added).
I refer to this passage below as the "crucial factors passage" or "the passage."
Under Gasbarini, McGuire, and D'Orazio, relation back does not apply due to Edwards' failure to satisfy the "crucial" requisite of petitioning for appointment as personal representative during the limitations period. The majority attempts to downplay the "crucial factors" passage by stating:
In [D'Orazio], the plaintiff mother did not obtain the letters of administration until about a year-and-a-half after the statute had run, which was substantially longer than the delay in McGuire.
Thus, read in context, the D'Orazio court's statement that it was "crucial" that the plaintiff request the letters before the statute had run was meant to answer the concern that the plaintiff mother was not granted the letters until "much longer after the statute's running than [the plaintiff in McGuire.]"Majority Op. at 21. This passage does more than address the concern that the plaintiff was not granted letters until much later than the plaintiff in McGuire. It demonstrates what is and what is not "crucial" for the relation back doctrine to apply. It teaches that relation back does not depend on whether letters are granted immediately after the statute expires or substantially after the statute expires. Instead, the only factors that matter for relation back-the "crucial factors"-are whether the plaintiff commences the action before the statute and requests letters before the statute expires. If the plaintiff satisfies both factors, as the plaintiff did in D'Orazio (and in Gasbarini and McGuire), relation back applies. If the plaintiff fails one of these factors, as Edwards did here, or both factors, relation back does not apply.
The majority also relies heavily on Lesho, which held that relation back applied even though the personal representative failed to petition for appointment as personal representative prior to the statute of limitations. As a Commonwealth Court opinion, Lesho is not binding on this Court but is at most persuasive authority, a point the majority concedes. Majority Op. at 21 n.7. In my view, Lesho reached the right result but for the wrong reason. The reason given flies in the face of Gasbarini, McGuire and D'Orazio.
In Lesho, a wrongful death action, two months after the decedent died, her parents filed a petition in the Orphans' Court to settle her estate under Section 3102 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3102. The petition was granted. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a timely complaint in the Arbitration Panels for Health Care identifying themselves as administrators of the decedent's estate. The plaintiffs neither applied for nor were granted letters of administration until after the statute of limitations had run. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth Court held that relation back applied, stating:
Absolutely nothing was changed in the [plaintiffs'] complaint by virtue of letters of administration having been granted to them after the statute of limitations had run. From the time the original complaint was filed, the [defendants] were aware that they were being sued for their alleged negligence resulting in the death of a named decedent. Every element necessary to establish the two causes of action against the [defendants] was set forth in the complaint, including the erroneous fact that the [plaintiffs] had been appointed administrators of their daughter's estate.Id., 435 A.2d at 1343. This passage is unpersuasive because it conflicts with Gasbarini, McGuire and D'Orazio, which all drive home that the appointment of the personal representative-and his right to prosecute an action on behalf of the estate-is not substantially assured unless she petitions for appointment as personal representative before the statute of limitations expires. When the plaintiff fails to take this step before the statute expires, there is no guarantee that she will ever take this step. The majority endorses Lesho's passage, reasoning that relation back applies when the plaintiff fails to petition for letters during the limitation period so long as the defendant is notified of the action before the statute expires. Majority Op. at 15, 22-23. The majority goes on to say that Edwards placed Norfolk Southern on notice of her action, and satisfied the relation back doctrine, by filing the complaint during the limitation period. Under Gasbarini, McGuire and D'Orazio, however, it is entirely irrelevant whether the defendant is notified of the action during the limitation period. The focus of these decisions is what the plaintiff does, not what the defendant learns, before the statute expires. Since Edwards failed to petition for letters before the statute expired, her action is a legal nullity, regardless of whether Norfolk Southern was notified of the action during the limitation period.
In my view, a better reason existed for applying relation back in Lesho. Long before the statute expired in Lesho, the decedent's parents filed a petition in the Orphans' Court to settle their daughter's estate under 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3102, which petition was granted. Section 3102, pertaining to small estates, provides in part that when any person dies domiciled in the Commonwealth owning property of a gross value not exceeding $50,000 (excluding certain real estate and other payments), upon petition of any party in interest, the court has the discretion, whether or not letters have been issued or a will probated, to direct distribution of the property to the entitled parties. The decree of distribution constitutes sufficient authority to the world that the persons named therein are entitled to distribution without administration, and it has the same effect as a decree of distribution after an accounting by a personal representative. Essentially, Section 3102 treats successful petitioners as having received letters of administration without formally applying for them. Thus, in Lesho, I believe the better reason for applying relation back was because the decedent's parents petitioned for their daughter's small estate distribution before the statute of limitations expired. This rationale is consistent with Gasbarini, McGuire and D'Orazio, because like the plaintiffs in these cases, the decedent's parents took sufficient action before the statute of limitations to substantially assure that an estate would be raised. Lesho itself suggests this rationale in dicta wherein it was stated, "[i]t is possible that the [parents] really thought they were the administrators of their daughter's estate because of their previous petition and proceeding before the Orphans' Court. . ." Id. at 1343.
The last case relied upon by the majority, Prevish, does not address the issue presently before us. There, several days before the statute of limitations expired, the plaintiff filed a writ of summons that identified the plaintiff as "Estate of Judith A. Bills, Deceased." The writ failed to identify the plaintiff as the executor of the estate. As such, the writ was a nullity, because actions cannot be brought by dead men or by estates lacking a personal representative. Id., 692 A.2d at 201. After the statute expired, the plaintiff filed a complaint identifying himself as the executor of the estate. The record was "unclear" as to when the plaintiff applied for letters testamentary or when they were issued. Id. at 205 n.2 (Schiller, J., concurring). The Court held that relation back did not apply because the only document filed before the statute expired, the writ of summons, was a nullity that failed to identify the executor or notify the defendants that there was, even potentially, an executor. Id. at 204. This omission created "the sort of instability that statutes of limitation seek to preclude." Id. at 205.
The majority opinion in Prevish was silent on when the plaintiff applied for or obtained letters.
The issue in Prevish is different than the issue in the present case. The issue before us is whether relation back applies due to Edwards' failure to apply for appointment as personal representative within the statute of limitations. The issue in Prevish was whether relation back applied under different circumstances, namely when a timely filed writ of summons failed to identify the plaintiff as personal representative of the estate. All that Prevish said about the issue before us was that the record was "unclear" when the plaintiff moved for letters testamentary. Id. at 205 n.2. Because Prevish does not speak to the issue that concerns us, I believe the majority's reliance upon Prevish is misplaced.
None of the cases relied upon by the majority support the application of relation back to this action. Edwards was not the personal representative of the estate at the time she filed this action, and she failed to cure this defect by filing a petition within the statute of limitations for appointment as personal representative. Thus, her action is a legal nullity and is not rescued by the relation back doctrine. Relation back does not cure the lack of a personal representative-the defect that otherwise renders the action a nullity-unless the plaintiff takes a sufficient step during the limitations period to ensure that an estate is raised. When, as here, the plaintiff fails to take any step to raise an estate until after the statute of limitation expires, relation back cannot be used to breathe life back into the plaintiff's lawsuit.
Since relation back doctrine does not apply to this case, the trial court should have granted summary judgment to Norfolk Southern. I respectfully submit that the proper course of action is to reverse the trial court's order denying summary judgment to Norfolk Southern and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment in its favor.
[*] Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.