## Facts

- Michael Nakoneczny executed a will in 1956 and later executed codicils in 1966 and 1967.
- The will devised to his son, Paul Nakoneczny, a specifically identified parcel of real estate at 3039 Preble Avenue in Pittsburgh.
- Before Michael’s death, the property was taken by an urban redevelopment authority through condemnation.
- Michael used most of the condemnation proceeds to purchase bonds, which he held until his death in 1970.
- At the executor’s account audit, Paul and his wife claimed the bonds (or their value), arguing the devise was not adeemed, that a statute preserved the gift, or that Michael had contracted to leave Paul the property (or equivalent value).
- The auditing judge denied the claim on the ground that the specific devise was adeemed; the Orphans’ Court en banc affirmed, and Paul and his wife appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the gift of the Preble Avenue property was a specific devise that was adeemed because the property was not owned by the testator at death, or a demonstrative/general gift traceable into the condemnation proceeds or bonds.
2. Whether condemnation (an involuntary conversion) prevents ademption of a specific devise or carries the devise into the proceeds or reinvested assets.
3. Whether § 17 of the Wills Act of 1947 applied to preserve the devisee’s rights in the proceeds or substituted property.
4. Whether the claimant proved an enforceable contract to make a will (or equivalent promise) entitling him to the bonds notwithstanding ademption.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the decree denying Paul and his wife any entitlement to the bonds as substitutes for the devised real estate.
- The devise of 3039 Preble Avenue was a specific devise, and it was adeemed because the property was not part of the estate at the testator’s death.
- The involuntary nature of the disposition (condemnation) did not prevent ademption.
- Section 17 of the Wills Act of 1947 did not apply because the record did not establish the conditions necessary to invoke that statutory protection.
- The alleged contract to make a will (or to leave equivalent value) was not proved to the required standard; related testimony was also limited by evidentiary constraints applicable to transactions with a decedent.

## Legal Principles

- A specific devise is a testamentary gift of a uniquely identified parcel that can be satisfied only by delivery of that particular property.
- If specifically devised property is not in the testator’s estate at death, the devise is adeemed and the beneficiary takes nothing in substitution absent an applicable statute or express testamentary provision.
- Ademption applies even when the property leaves the testator’s ownership by involuntary act or operation of law, including condemnation.
- Testator intent is relevant in classifying a gift as specific versus demonstrative, but once a devise is classified as specific and the property is absent from the estate at death, ademption follows without an intent inquiry.
- Statutory anti-ademption provisions protecting beneficiaries upon conversion of assets require proof of the statute’s predicates; without such proof, common-law ademption governs.
- Contracts to make a will are enforceable only if proved with clear and convincing evidence and supported by consideration; claims based on conversations or dealings with the decedent may be constrained by evidentiary rules limiting testimony by interested parties.

## Conclusion

The court held that the will made a specific devise of the Preble Avenue property, and because the property was condemned before death, the devise was adeemed and did not attach to the condemnation proceeds or bonds; neither the asserted statutory exception nor an alleged contract claim was proved to overcome ademption.


In re Estate of Nakoneczny, 456 Pa. 320, 319 A.2d 893 (Pa. 1974)