Estate of Nalaschi
Pennsylvania Superior Court
90 A.3d 8 (2014)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Albert Nalaschi, Sr. made a will in January 2010 naming his son Eugene Nalaschi (defendant) as executor and his daughter Louise Lokuta as sole beneficiary. Over the course of 2010, several incidents occurred that indicated Albert’s mental health was declining. In March 2011, Albert met with attorney James Zipay to draft a power of attorney. Zipay determined that Albert was competent to execute a legal document. In April 2011, Albert met with attorney Charles Witaconis (plaintiff) to make a new will. Witaconis confirmed that Albert knew what property he owned and knew who his family members were and determined that Albert had testamentary capacity. Albert executed a will naming Witaconis as executor and his son James Nalaschi as his sole beneficiary. Eugene Turchetti, a doctor who had never met Albert, later reviewed his medical records and determined that he had alcohol-related dementia, a progressive mental illness that had deprived Albert of the capacity to execute the 2011 will. After Albert’s death, a court issued letters testamentary to Eugene Nalaschi concerning the 2010 will. Witaconis petitioned the court to probate the 2011 will. The court granted Witaconis’s petition and revoked Eugene Nalaschi’s letters testamentary. Eugene Nalaschi appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Donohue, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.