In re Pavlinko’s Estate
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
148 A.2d 528 (1959)

- Written by Christine Raino, JD
Facts
Vasil and Hellen Pavlinko, non-native English speakers, hired an attorney who spoke their native language to draft their wills. The attorney drafted complimentary wills in which each spouse left their estate to the surviving spouse and to the same residuary beneficiary, Hellen’s brother, Elias Martin (proponent), upon the death of the surviving spouse. However, when executing the wills, Vasil and Hellen inadvertently signed each other’s wills, which were then witnessed and notarized by their attorney and his secretary, neither of whom noticed the error. Hellen predeceased Vasil in 1951 but her will (bearing Vasil’s signature) was not offered for probate. After Vasil’s death in 1957, Martin offered Hellen’s will, signed by Vasil, for probate as Vasil’s will. The will offered for probate with Vasil’s signature devised the residuary estate to “my husband, Vasil Pavlinko” unless he predeceased in which case the residuary estate was devised to “my brother, Elias Martin.” The Register of Wills denied probate and the Orphan’s Court affirmed the decision to deny probate. Martin appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bell, J.)
Dissent (Musmanno, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.