The Herald, Sharon, Pa.

May 30, 2008

Pa. Supreme Court backs estate rulings

By Joe Pinchot

GROVE CITY AREA — The state Supreme Court has declined to wade into a battle between two stepbrothers over their mother’s estate.

The court said Wednesday it will not hear the appeal of Richard W. White, letting stand lower court rulings.

Mary L. White, formerly of Grove City, Pine Township and Findley Township, died March 9, 2003, at age 93. She left equal shares of her estate to her sons, Donald A. and Salvatore Lovaglio; a stepson, Richard W. White; and a stepdaughter, Emily Benko.

However, there was little money in the estate. After she sold her Grove City home in 2002, she gave $40,000 in gifts to Donald Lovaglio and his wife Sherry, of Findley Township, in appreciation for them taking her into their home, according to the Superior Court opinion filed Dec. 11.

Mercer County Common Pleas Judge Christopher J. St. John ruled that the gifts were legitimate.

White sought to have the money returned to the estate and argued that it was improper for Lovaglio, who had been granted power of attorney by his mother, to get so much of Mrs. White’s money before she died.

The gifts “practically stripped the Decedent of all her available property” and did not leave enough money in the estate to cover her funeral expenses and nursing home bills, said White’s attorney, Milford L. McBride II.

“Her last will and testament should be given more weight than any other document or alleged oral statements,” McBride said.

The Lovaglio family said Mrs. White’s assets were held jointly with Donald Lovaglio, so there was no estate when Mrs. White died. All of Mrs. White’s expenses and bills had been paid for, and her funeral was paid for by her sons.

A three-judge panel of Superior Court concluded that Mrs. White was not “unduly influenced” to make the gifts. It noted she had talked to an attorney about her plans — although she went against the advice of the attorney — and testimony showed that she was mentally sound.

Mrs. White “was not restricted in any way how she spent her money or how she handled her financial affairs,” the court said.