Executor Deeded the Estate’s House to Himself While a Petition to Remove Him Was Pending — a Pennsylvania Court Removed Him and Voided the Deed

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only

Family estate fights can drag on for years, but this one had a sharp turning point: while two sisters were actively asking a Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court to remove their brother as executor, he signed and recorded a deed transferring the estate’s house for $1.

That move—and the chaos around how the estate was being handled—ended up backfiring. In a decision from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the court’s opinion lays out how the executor was removed, and how the lower court’s order voiding the deed was upheld after the executor and the recipient challenged the court’s power to do it.

A will with clear instructions, and a house at the center of it

Dominic J. Forte died in February 2021, leaving a will that was admitted to probate in Luzerne County. He was survived by his wife, Joan Forte, and three adult children: Thomas, Donna, and Gina.

The will appointed Thomas to serve as executor, and the Register of Wills issued him letters testamentary in March 2021. The will also laid out a specific plan: Thomas would receive the decedent’s coal-company interests, and Joan would receive a trust equal to one-third of the gross value of the probate estate.

The house in Hazleton was treated differently. The will directed Thomas to sell the residence, which the decedent owned in his name alone, while giving Joan the right to stay there for six months after the death, with the estate paying expenses during that period. An appraisal obtained within a month valued the house at $290,000.

Occupancy turned into a bigger financial tug-of-war

Instead of following the six-month timeline, the family’s informal arrangement stretched out. The opinion says Thomas and Donna verbally agreed Joan could remain in the house beyond the six months if she paid her own expenses, while the estate would cover major bills like taxes. Gina did not agree to extending the stay past six months.

Still, Thomas allowed Joan to remain, and the estate continued paying all expenses. Then, in September 2022, Thomas used $53,106 in estate funds to purchase a car for Joan, a detail that later became part of the broader mismanagement claims.

Meanwhile, the estate’s distributions were uneven. In 2023 and 2024, the estate made three distributions to Donna totaling $174,617.33. Gina, who lived in South Carolina, received nothing. The will had also directed Thomas to set up trusts for both daughters, but he did not establish those trusts.

The sisters went to court—and the deed got recorded anyway

By August 2024, Donna and Gina had had enough. On August 22, 2024, they filed a petition asking the Orphans’ Court to remove Thomas as executor for failing to properly administer the estate. They also asked for a substitute administrator and an accounting of estate assets.

The record reflected a messy notice situation. It did not appear that the petition was served on Joan, and it also did not appear that the clerk mailed a later scheduling order to her, even though the court directed the clerk to mail it to interested parties.

Thomas responded through counsel on September 24, 2024, and in his answer he admitted Joan was still living in the house and that the estate had been paying expenses, while claiming those amounts would be deducted from her share. Attached was a certificate of service stating the response was served by email and first-class mail on counsel for the petitioners and counsel for Joan.

That same day, Thomas executed and recorded a deed conveying the residence to Joan for $1—without giving notice to Donna or Gina.

At the hearing, the executor admitted the basics weren’t done

The Orphans’ Court held its evidentiary hearing on October 16, 2024. Joan did not appear. Thomas, Donna, and Gina testified.

Donna testified she had initially agreed to let Joan stay longer, but later withdrew consent because of safety and financial concerns given Joan’s age (she was ninety at the time). Gina testified she never agreed to the extended occupancy and said she received no communication or distribution, adding, “No one has ever mailed me anything to [my] South Carolina address.”

Both sisters described ongoing trouble getting responses from Thomas—unreturned phone calls and emails, and what Gina described as repeated “begging.”

Thomas acknowledged a list of major departures from the will: he allowed Joan to take an elective share, he didn’t establish any trusts for the daughters, he didn’t distribute assets in accordance with the will, he used estate funds to purchase the vehicle for Joan, and he conveyed the residence for $1 instead of selling it.

He also testified Joan made a $37,200.12 payment to the estate on October 3, 2024, which he described only as being “for the difference of the house.” He said he relied on the 2021 appraisal—three years old by then—to value the property.

Even though the hearing was specifically about removing him for mismanagement, Thomas could not say how much Donna and Gina were supposed to receive versus what they had received. The opinion notes he also failed to produce bank statements or records showing the status of estate accounts, assets, and distributions.

The judge voided the deed on the spot, and removal followed

Neither Donna nor Gina had explicitly asked the Orphans’ Court to void the deed at that moment. But immediately after the hearing, the Orphans’ Court entered an order invalidating the deed to Joan and directing title to revert to the estate.

About a week later, on October 23, 2024, the court entered a separate order removing Thomas as executor. Thomas later discontinued an appeal related to his removal, but both Thomas and Joan appealed the order that invalidated the deed.

Their arguments focused heavily on procedure and fairness. They claimed the Orphans’ Court lacked “jurisdiction” to void the deed, pointing to the absence of a pleading seeking that relief and arguing Joan didn’t receive the formal citation and notice described in the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code and Orphans’ Court rules. They also framed it as a due process problem: in their view, Joan was an indispensable party to any action affecting the home’s title, and the court couldn’t decide her rights in her absence.

The Superior Court disagreed with how they packaged it. The panel explained that disputes about whether the proper citation and service occurred go to personal jurisdiction, not subject matter jurisdiction. And personal-jurisdiction objections can be waived if not raised in the trial court. The opinion emphasized that Joan did not appear at the hearing and “raised no objection” about service, notice, or the court’s authority at any point in the proceedings, and neither she nor Thomas sought reconsideration after the order was entered.

Because those arguments weren’t raised in the Orphans’ Court, the Superior Court held the claims were waived—and it affirmed the order voiding the deed.

The end result was blunt: the transfer of the residence to Joan was invalidated and the property was ordered back into the estate, and Thomas was removed from his role as executor. For this family, the case reads like a warning about what happens when an executor treats estate assets like they can be rearranged midstream—especially when a removal petition is already on file and the court is watching.