The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the orphan’s court’s decree, finding that it had erred and abused its discretion in confirming the account of the decedent’s agent under a power of attorney (POA) and imposing a surcharge against the agent only for an amount owed to the decedent’s nursing facility where the administrator of the decedent’s estate presented uncontested evidence that the agent had breached the fiduciary duties she owed to the decedent by depleting the decedent’s accounts without explanation. In re Beam, No. 768 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 1, 2025).
In 2016, Dorothy Beam appointed her great-niece, Vaneeda Days, as her agent under a POA. In July 2018, Dorothy moved into a nursing facility called Renaissance Healthcare & Rehabilitation (Renaissance) and remained there until her death in December 2018. She died intestate, survived by Vaneeda and her great-nephew, Shaheed Days. Vaneeda did not pay Dorothy’s outstanding balance of $32,534.28 to Renaissance but made numerous withdrawals from Dorothy’s bank accounts until they were completely depleted.
David Jaskowiak, who was appointed as administrator of Dorothy’s estate, petitioned the orphan’s court, requesting that Vaneeda be ordered to file an account of a large number of unexplained transactions, including withdrawals totaling $140,205.95 from Dorothy’s accounts. David asserted that Vaneeda had engaged in self-dealing, failed to act in Dorothy’s best interest, and breached fiduciary duties she owed to Dorothy. After several contempt proceedings for failure to file an account as ordered by the orphan’s court, Vaneeda filed a final account acknowledging the balance owed to Renaissance, but the expenses listed in the account did not correspond with the withdrawals made from Dorothy’s bank accounts. David objected to the account, alleging that Vaneeda had failed to pay the nursing home, misappropriated Dorothy’s assets, and engaged in self-dealing and that Vaneeda’s account was inadequate to document the expenses, to whom funds were distributed, and when funds were distributed.
Although Vaneeda did not appear at the trial, the orphan’s court rejected most of David’s objections and did not impose a surcharge against Vaneeda for the entire $140,205.95. It confirmed her account and limited the surcharge to the $32,534.28 owed to Renaissance, asserting that there was insufficient evidence to support David’s claims and that the remaining amounts could have been gifts. David appealed.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court determined that neither the law nor the evidence supported the orphan’s court’s decision to limit the amount surcharged to $32,534.28. The court found that David had shown by clear and uncontested evidence that Vaneeda had breached her fiduciary duty to Dorothy as agent under the POA. The undisputed evidence established that Vaneeda had failed to disclose receipts, disbursements, and transactions in her account as requested by David and the orphan’s court. Although the POA granted Vaneeda the authority to make unlimited gifts, she did not assert that any of the transactions were gifts but instead asserted that she had made no gifts under the POA. The court found that there was no evidentiary basis for the orphan’s court to determine that any of the transactions were gifts or authorized by Dorothy under the POA because Vaneeda did not appear at trial and did not provide any evidence to substantiate her account or refute David’s objections. The court therefore determined that it could infer from Vaneeda’s failure to account, appear at trial, or document the transactions that she had gifted herself the $140,205.95 withdrawn from Dorothy’s accounts and that she should be surcharged that amount. As a result, the court reversed the orphan’s court’s decree and remanded the case for reconsideration of the proper surcharge consistent with its opinion.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
