In re Estate of Hopkins

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Estate of Shelly

    2008 Pa. Super. 116 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)   Cited 7 times
    Stating that whether a document is testamentary is a matter of law

    Accordingly, because the cigarette carton does not include the one essential element for the creation of a will, a disposition of property, it cannot be considered as such. In reEstate of Hopkins, 391 Pa.Super. 211, 570 A.2d 1058, 1059 (1990) (citations omitted). As a result, we find no abuse of discretion by the orphans' court in its determination that the cigarette carton did not constitute a positive disposition of assets.

  2. In re Estate of Fleigle

    444 Pa. Super. 632 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)   Cited 6 times

    We note that a writing need not assume a special form to take effect as a will or codicil. See In re Estate of Hopkins, 391 Pa. Super. 211, 570 A.2d 1058 (1990), appeal denied, 525 Pa. 627, 578 A.2d 414 (1990); In re Hengen's Estate, 337 Pa. 547, 12 A.2d 119 (1940). One essential element of a valid will or codicil is that it dispose of property.

  3. In re Serin

    2575 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 7, 2023)

    See Estate of Shelly, 950 A.2d at 1025; see also In re Estate of Fleigle, 664 A.2d 612, 615 (Pa. Super. 1995) (explaining that a will must dispose of property, and that "disposition must be intended to take effect after the testator's death."); In re Estate of Hopkins, 570 A.2d 1058, 1059 (Pa. Super. 1990) ("[T]here is one essential element, which is that the document dispose of property."). "[I]f a testator intends to make a testamentary gift, it can be done in many ways and in many forms, and the intent, as we have often said, is the pole-star."