B-125249, SEP. 21, 1955
Highlights
HELEN SHAW: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR UNDATED LETTER POSTMARKED JULY 18. WERE PAID BY MRS. THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT YOU WERE SEPARATED FROM THE DECEASED IN JULY 1946 AND THAT YOU HAVE REMARRIED. DOES NOT APPEAR THAT YOU WERE THE RECIPIENT OF ANY CONTRIBUTIONS OR BENEFITS FROM OR THROUGH YOUR FORMER HUSBAND BY COURT ORDER. HER CLAIM FOR THE PROCEEDS OF THE SUBJECT CHECK WAS ALLOWED. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT. THAT AMOUNT ADDED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECK HERE IN QUESTION COULD NOT HAVE EQUALLED THE AMOUNT PAID BY HER FOR THE BURIAL EXPENSES. THE FACT THAT SHE MAY HAVE RECEIVED SUCH AN ALLOWANCE IN NO WAY AFFECTED OUR DECISION IN THE MATTER. THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.
B-125249, SEP. 21, 1955
TO MRS. HELEN SHAW:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR UNDATED LETTER POSTMARKED JULY 18, 1955, IN REGARD TO YOUR CLAIM FOR THE PROCEEDS OF TAX REFUND CHECK NO. 26,588,315, FOR $51, DRAWN APRIL 21, 1954, TO THE ORDER OF SPURGEON PIEFER, YOUR FORMER HUSBAND, BY L. V. WITCOMBE, SYMBOL 423.
THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE PAYEE DIED INTESTATE ON MARCH 21, 1954, IN WEST NANTICOKE, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. PRIOR THERETO HE HAD RESIDED AT THE HOME OF HIS SISTER, MRS. AMELIA A. FAUX, FOR APPROXIMATELY NINE YEARS, TOGETHER WITH TWO OF HIS MINOR CHILDREN. IT APPEARS THAT THE DECEASED LEFT NO ESTATE OTHER THAN THE PROCEEDS OF THE SUBJECT CHECK AND THAT HIS BURIAL EXPENSES, AMOUNTING TO $401.50, WERE PAID BY MRS. FAUX FROM HER PERSONAL FUNDS. FURTHER, THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT YOU WERE SEPARATED FROM THE DECEASED IN JULY 1946 AND THAT YOU HAVE REMARRIED. DOES NOT APPEAR THAT YOU WERE THE RECIPIENT OF ANY CONTRIBUTIONS OR BENEFITS FROM OR THROUGH YOUR FORMER HUSBAND BY COURT ORDER, OR OTHERWISE.
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA FUNERAL EXPENSES CONSTITUTE A PREFERRED CLAIM AGAINST A DECEDENT'S ESTATE. AS THE RECORD DISCLOSED THAT MRS. FAUX PAID THE FUNERAL EXPENSES OF HER BROTHER FROM HER PERSONAL FUNDS, HER CLAIM FOR THE PROCEEDS OF THE SUBJECT CHECK WAS ALLOWED, THERE HAVING BEEN PRESENTED NO CLAIM ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER HER CLAIM. WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT MRS. FAUX CLAIMED AND RECEIVED A PAYMENT FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO APPLY ON THE FUNERAL EXPENSES, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT, EVEN IF SHE DID RECEIVE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT ALLOWABLE IN SUCH A CASE, THAT AMOUNT ADDED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECK HERE IN QUESTION COULD NOT HAVE EQUALLED THE AMOUNT PAID BY HER FOR THE BURIAL EXPENSES. HENCE, THE FACT THAT SHE MAY HAVE RECEIVED SUCH AN ALLOWANCE IN NO WAY AFFECTED OUR DECISION IN THE MATTER.
WHILE YOUR LETTER HAS BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED, THERE APPEARS NOTHING THEREIN WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY OR WARRANT ANY CHANGE IN THE CONCLUSION HERETOFORE REACHED ON YOUR CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.