In Re: Estate of Shirley M. Weaver

In Re: Estate of Shirley M. Weaver

Civil Action-Law-Estate Administration-Decedent’s Estates-Loss of Assets by Agent Under Power of Attorney During Lifetime of Decedent-Accounting-Basis

A son alleges that family members systematically took assets belonging to his mother, Shirley M. Weaver who died on July 26, 2023, while she had been alive, depriving him of a share of his mother’s estate. The son, who is a beneficiary under his mother’s Will, filed a request for an accounting of actions since 2012 on the basis that several relatives acting as agents under a power of attorney misappropriated funds in violation of fiduciary duties. 

1.  Title 20 Pa.C.S. § 5610 provides that an agent shall file an account of his or her administration whenever directed to do so by the Court.

2.  There is no automatic right to an accounting upon request.

3.  An aggrieved person may obtain an accounting from a person acting as an agent when:  (1) a valid agreement exists between the agent and the principle; (2) the agent received or controlled funds belonging to the principle; (3) the principle-agent relationship created a legal duty that the agent acts for the principle and not for himself or herself; and (4) the defendant breached his or her duty.

4.  A petition seeking an accounting by an agent under a power of attorney is separate and distinct from the type of accounting prepared within the administration of an estate. 

5.  While the son has set forth enough facts to create a justiciable issue as to whether or not an accounting should be conducted, the docket involving his late mother’s Estate is not the proper vehicle for adjudication of the request for accounting with the son being advised to initiate separate litigation against the individuals acting as agents under his late mother’s power of attorney. 

L.C.C.C.P.O.C. No. 24-0019, Opinion by Bradford H. Charles, Judge, May 1, 2025.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA

ORPHANS’ COURT DIVISION

IN RE:                                                                 :

ESTATE OF SHIRLEY M. WEAVER                  :        OC-24-0019

                                                                             :         

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, this 1^st day of May 2025, in accordance with the attached Opinion, the Motion of Victor A. Shaud, Jr. to require that an accounting be conducted via the above-referenced docket is DENIED. This Order is rendered without prejudice to the ability of Victor A. Shaud, Jr. to file a separate lawsuit against Virginia L. Sayer and Harry J. Shaud in their capacities as Power of Attorney Agents for Shirley M. Weaver. This Order is also without prejudice to the ability of Victor A. Shaud, Jr. to request an Order requiring an accounting in the newly filed docket.

BY THE COURT:

                                                                                                          J.

                                                BRADFORD H. CHARLES

BHC/pmd

cc:     Court Administration

          Estate of Virginia L. Sayer, c/o Jerry Sayer// 119 E. Washington St., Fleetwood PA 19522

          Harry J. Shaud// 1624 Rita Lane, Lebanon PA 17042

Victor A. Shaud, Jr.//315 Arch Street, Bainbridge PA 17502

Rebecca E. Mitchell, Esq.// 15019 Kutztown Road, Kutztown PA 19530

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA

ORPHANS’ COURT DIVISION

ESTATE OF SHIRLEY M. WEAVER                  :        OC-24-0019

APPEARANCES                                                  :

Rebecca Mitchell, ESQUIRE         FOR Virginia L. Sayer,

          Executrix of Estate

Victor A. Shaud, Jr.    Pro Se

Opinion, Charles, J., May 1 , 2025

Victor A. Shaud, Jr. (hereafter VICTOR) alleges that family members systematically pilfered assets belonging to his mother while she was still alive, thereby depriving him of the share of his mother’s Estate to which he feels entitled. Last year, VICTOR submitted a request that his late mother’s Executrix should file an accounting covering a period of time more than ten (10) years prior to the date of his mother’s death. We denied that request as having no basis in Pennsylvania law. More recently, VICTOR has filed another request in his mother’s estate docket seeking an accounting. In his latest request, VICTOR alleges that several of his relatives acted as agents for his mother pursuant to a Power of Attorney and misappropriated monies in violation of their fiduciary duty. We issue this Opinion today to address VICTOR’s latest request.

I.        FACTS and PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

          Shirley M. Weaver died on July 26, 2023. Her Estate was opened by Executrix Virginia L. Sayer (hereafter VIRGINIA) on September 19, 2023. According to documents filed by multiple people, the Will identified four (4) beneficiaries. One was VICTOR.

          Apparently, at some point during 2024, VICTOR became aware that his mother’s Estate did not contain the assets he had expected. On November 27, 2024, VICTOR filed a pro se motion seeking a Court Order that VIRGINIA – in her capacity as Executrix of her mother’s estate – file a full accounting of what happened with her mother’s income and assets dating back to 2012. We conducted several court proceedings regarding VICTOR’s request. Ultimately, we advised VICTOR that we lacked legal authority to order an Executrix to conduct a full accounting of a decedent’s financial transactions dating back more than ten (10) years prior to her death. We urged VICTOR to seek legal counsel so that he could present his claims in a legally viable manner.^[1]

          On February 1, 2025, VICTOR filed another request for an accounting. Once again, he filed his request to the above-referenced docket. However, VICTOR’s second request sought an accounting by VIRGINIA and Harry J. Shaud (hereafter HARRY) in their capacity as agents under a Power of Attorney (hereafter POA). Once again, VICTOR asked for a recapitulation of financial transactions dating back to 2012.

          VIRGINA has opposed VICTOR’s request for an accounting. Although VIRGINIA has not yet filed any sort of inventory on behalf of the Estate, she did file a brief on December 12, 2024, in which she claimed that the total value of Shirley M. Weaver’s Estate was roughly $30,000 and that expenses were owed by the Estate totaling $25,000. Effectively, VIRGINA argues that the Estate is not worth enough money to justify an accounting.

          Because the latest effort by VICTOR to obtain an accounting is far more facially valid than his initial efforts seeking action by an executrix, we took his latest request under advisement and conducted legal research. We issue this Opinion today in order to direct that VICTOR’s effort to obtain an accounting be litigated in a separate lawsuit to be created following this Opinion.

II.       DISCUSSION

          Section 5610 of the Probate and Fiduciaries Code authorizes trial courts to direct an accounting by an agent acting under a Power of Attorney: “An agent shall file an account of his administration whenever directed to do so by the court.” 20 Pa.C.S.A. §5610. Unfortunately, neither §5610 nor any Rules of Court promulgated pursuant thereto set forth a specific process by which an accounting should be requested. However, in the case of In Re: Estate of Klionsky, 331 A.3d 643 (Pa. Super. 2024), the Superior Court cited with approval a process by which a court conducted a hearing in a docket separate from the one involving an Estate.

          As it relates to a request for an accounting under §5610, our Appellate Courts have clearly articulated that there is no automatic right to an accounting simply because someone requests one. As early at 1941, our Commonwealth’s highest court stated that the mere existence of a principle-agent relationship does not by itself justify an accounting. See, Ringer v. Finfrock, 17 A.2d 348 (Pa. 1941). More recently, in the case of In Re: Nadzam, 203 A.3d 215 (Pa. Super. 2019), the Court interpreted §5610 as affording a permissive, but not a mandatory, ability to require a POA Agent to file an accounting:

“Ms. Domitrovich offers no authority for her apparent contention that an Orphans’ Court should or must require an accounting any time a person requests one, and that this Court should reverse a decision not to direct an accounting just because someone requested it. Rather, this Court has held that the generally-applicable rules regarding standing are at issue in this context.”

          Id at page 220.

          Under Pennsylvania law, an aggrieved person can obtain an accounting from a person acting as an agent when four elements are established:

• A valid agreement existed between the agent and principle
• The agent received or controlled funds belonging to the principle
• The principle-agent relationship created a legal duty that the agent acts for the principle and not for himself/herself
• The defendant breached the duty outlined above. Haft v. US Steel Corp, 499 A.2d 676 (Pa. Super. 1985).

Absent facts present to establish the above, the Court is not obligated to order an accounting.

III.      ANALYSIS

          VICTOR has alleged in his petition that VIRGINIA and HARRY acted as POA Agents for Shirley M. Weaver between 2012 and the date of her death.^[2] VICTOR alleges that Shirley M. Weaver possessed real estate plus a pension valued at $427,960. (Paragraph 7 of Petition). VICTOR does not know what happened to Shirley M. Weaver’s assets and he suspects that HARRY and VIRGINIA misappropriated funds belonging to her.

          Lest there be any confusion, we need to clearly proclaim that VICTOR has alleged enough facts to create a justiciable issue as to whether or not  an accounting should be conducted. In other words, VICTOR has set forth a legitimate request that deserves to be heard via a factual hearing. At a hearing, facts relevant to whether an accounting should be ordered can be considered, including the following:

• Whether a Power of Attorney agreement existed between Shirley M. Weaver and VIRGINA/HARRY?
• What were the terms of the Power of Attorney agreement?
• What were Shirley M. Weaver’s physical and cognitive abilities between 2012 and 2023?
• To what extent is VICTOR a beneficiary of Shirley M. Weaver’s Last Will and Testament?
• When did VICTOR learn about the alleged misappropriation of funds from his mother’s estate? Does an issue of timeliness exist that could bar a request for an accounting proffered in 2025?

The problem we have with VICTOR’s motion does not involve its allegations or its requested remedy. The problem is that we do not believe that the docket involving Shirley M. Weaver’s Estate is the proper vehicle by which VICTOR’s request for an accounting can be adjudicated.

There are multiple problems associated with this including VICTOR’s Motion under the umbrella of the Estate docket. First and foremost, HARRY is not a party to the Estate litigation, nor, for that matter, is VIRGINIA in her individual capacity. Second, the Estate was not in existence when the pilfering alleged by VICTOR occurred. Third, no statute, regulation or Rule of Court authorizes an estate executor/executrix to conduct the type of inter vivos investigation that VICTOR seeks.

As recognized in In Re: Estate of Klionsky, supra, a Petition seeking an accounting by a Power of Attorney agent is separate and distinct from the type of accounting prepared within the administration of an estate. Here, we conclude that VICTOR has alleged enough facts to justify consideration of an accounting by HARRY and VIRGINIA in their capacity as Power of Attorney agents. However, this type of motion filed by VICTOR cannot be entertained within the context of administering an estate.^[3]

Once again, we will deny the specific motion filed by VICTOR. We advise VICTOR that if he initiates separate litigation against HARRY and VIRGINIA in their capacity as POA Agents for Shirley M. Weaver, and if VICTOR submits a motion seeking an accounting under the new docket, we would schedule a factual hearing to receive evidence relevant to the question of whether an accounting should be conducted and who should pay for it.

For at least the fourth time, we urge VICTOR to hire an attorney.^[4] VICTOR has now filed multiple motions that we have deemed procedurally deficient. We remind VICTOR that the statute he has invoked, 20 Pa.C.S.A. §5610, includes a clause permitting the Court to allocate the costs involved in an accounting, and we will consider continued clumsy efforts to pursue relief in a legally deficient manner when it comes time to render a decision about costs. We therefore say to VICTOR: “Get it right the next time you file.”

---

[1] To give VICTOR time to accomplish this, we stayed all proceedings in the Estate docket for sixty (60) days.

[2] VICTOR alleges that VIRGINIA’s Power of Attorney took effect in 2012 and HARRY’s took effect in 2015.

[3] As we set forth in our Court Order of January 30, 2025, the issues VICTOR seeks to litigate might have been justiciable via an objection to an estate inventory. Here, no inventory has been filed and VICTOR has chosen not to use that procedural modality.

[4] The last time VICTOR was in Court, we advised him that he should obtain an attorney and that the role of this Court is not to provide legal advice about how he should proceed to pursue his claims. VICTOR obviously ignored our advice that he obtain counsel. Instead, it appears as though VICTOR may be employing a tactic of “throw everything against a wall and see what sticks.” Thus far, we have provided VICTOR with legal advice via the Court Orders and Opinions we have filed in response to his motions. While we have done so in part because we recognize that VICTOR has substantive claims that should be addressed, we warn him today that there will come a time where we will not author Opinions or Court Orders to afford him with additional chances to pursue his arguments in a proper legal fashion. At some point, we will simply respond to an inappropriate filing by stating “Denied” without any additional information.