Fessman's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 12 November 1956 |
| Citation | 386 Pa. 447,126 A.2d 676 |
| Parties | In re ESTATE of Charles H. FESSMAN, Deceased. Appeal of Eva M. PUCCINELLI. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
John A. Metz, Jr., Metz, McClure, Hanna & MacAlister, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Andrew L. Weil, Weil, Vatz & Weil, R. J. Cleary, Pittsburgh, for appellee, George W. McKeag, Philips, Farren & McKeag, Philadelphia, Pa., Arthur W. Lewis, Lewis & Hutchinson, Camden, N. J., of counsel.
Before STERN, C. J., and JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
The question involved may be succinctly stated: Did Fessman agree to support his son during his minority, or did the support agreement terminate on Fessman's death?
The Orphans' Court awarded the bulk of Fessman's estate to a trustee for the minor's support during minority. From this decree one of the residuary legatees appealed.
Fessman and his wife had a child, Charles Richard Fessman, who was born March 17, 1949. Mrs. Fessman, on May 24, 1949, filed a complaint in divorce a mensa et thoro. On January 18, 1951, the Court ordered Fessman to pay his wife $140 a month as alimony pendente lite. On July 27, 1951, Fessman executed a will in which he left his residuary estate to be divided equally between his parents on the one hand and Eva Puccinelli, the appellant, on the other hand. On March 18, 1952, Mrs. Fessman's complaint was amended to ask for an absolute divorce.
On july 15, 1952, Fessman executed and his attorney, Tasso E. Camarinos, sent to Mrs. Fessman's attorney, William J. Graham, the following important letter:
'July 15, 1952
'Mr. William J. Graham
'Attorney at Law
'620 Frick Building
'Pittsburgh 19, Penna.
'Dear Mr. Graham:
'It is understood and agreed that I will continue to pay to Minnie Fessman, the sum of $100,00 monthly payable between the 10th and 15th day of each month for the support of Charles Richard Fessman in lieu of the Order of Common Pleas Court dated January 18, 1950. *
'Very truly yours,
'Charles H. Fessman'
On July 16, 1952, without any foreknowledge on the part of the parties, the Court granted an absolute divorce to Mrs. Fessman.
Fessman made payments of $100 a month for the support of his son under and in accordance with the letter of July 15, 1952, except that at the time of his death on October 11, 1954, he was in arrears in such payments in the total sum of $580. On February 3, 1954, Fessman wrote his former wife enclosing some money to pay part of his arrearages for the support of their son and asked her to marry him. However, Fessman did not change his last will dated July 27, 1951, in which as above noted he gave Miss Puccinelli one-half of his residuary estate. Miss Puccinelli contends that the agreement for support of Fessman's son terminated upon Fessman's death, and that she was entitled to one-half of his residuary estate. The Court interpreted Fessman's letter of July 15, 1952 (in conjunction with certain oral testimony) to impose a liability upon the father to support his son during minority; and awarded to Mrs. Fessman arrearages for the support of their son, and a large sum to a trustee to pay for the support of the son $100 a month from Fessman's death on October 11, 1954.
The letter from Fessman to Graham dated July 15, 1952, promising to pay the sum of $100 monthly for the support of his son, is undoubtedly ambiguous for the reason that it is silent as to the duration of the payments. Appllant contends that parol evidence as to the intention of the parties and the duration of Fessman's obligation was inadmissible, under the well settled general rule: Where an agreement purports to contain the entire agreement between the parties, and there is no averment and proof that anything was omitted therefrom by fraud, accident or mistake, all prior negotiations and verbal agreements are merged in and superseded by the subsequent written agreement and parol evidence is inadmissible to alter, contradict vary, subtract from or add to the written agreement. Grubb v. Rockey, 366 Pa. 592, 79 A.2d 255. However, this general rule does not apply where the written agreement is ambiguous. In such a case parol evidence is admissible to explain the agreement and to resolve the ambiguity in order to ascertain the intention and meaning of the parties. In re McCready's Trust, 387 Pa. 107, 126 A.2d 429; Morgan v. Phillips, 385 Pa. 9, 122 A.2d 73; Lipsie v. Dickey, 375 Pa. 230, 100 A.2d 370; Waldman v. Shoemaker, 367 Pa. 587, 80 A.2d 776.
Where a contract does not fix a definite time for the duration of the relationship or the terms or obligations which are created therein, parol evidence is admissible to show 'the surrounding circumstances, the situation of the parties, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Chateaugay Corp.
..."marketable bituminous coal"). See also, Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Aetna Business Credit, Inc. 619 F.2d 1001 (3d Cir.1980), In re Fessman, 386 Pa. 447, 126 A.2d 676 (1956); Pavlich v. Ambrosia Coal & Construction Co., 441 Pa. 210, 273 A.2d 343 (1971). "Both parties are entitled to present eviden......
-
Benson ex rel. Patterson v. Patterson
...has no duty to settle his estate upon his children. These principles were recognized by our supreme court in In re Fessman Estate, 386 Pa. 447, 452, 126 A.2d 676, 678 (1956), where it stated that "... a father, in the absence of a contract, has no legal obligation to support his children af......
-
Daset Min. Corp. v. Industrial Fuels Corp.
...Inc., 619 F.2d 1001 (1980 3rd Cir.); Silver v. Gene K. Kolber Advertising, Inc., 518 F.Supp. 939 (E.D.Pa.1981); In Re Fessman's Estate, 386 Pa. 447, 126 A.2d 676 (1956); Pavlich v. Ambrosia Coal Co., 441 Pa. 210, 273 A.2d 343 (1971); Kohn v. Kohn, 242 Pa.Super. 435, 364 A.2d 350 (1976). In ......
-
Abrego v. Abrego
...In re Estate of Sweeney, see note 3, 500 P.2d at 66, supra; Bailey v. Bailey, see note 3, 471 P.2d at 222; In re Estate of Fessman, 386 Pa. 447, 126 A.2d 676, 678 (1956); In re Estate of Kerby, 49 Tenn.App. 329, 354 S.W.2d 814, 818 (1961).5 Rambo v. Hicks, 733 P.2d 405 (Okla.1986).6 Althoug......