Estate of Virginia Cherry Appeal of: Ronald Locke
111 A.3d 1204
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Case: Estate of Virginia A. Cherry; 2015 PA Super 52; Huntingdon County, Pa.
- Will (May 24, 2011) nominated Ronald Locke as executor and left 23 specific cash bequests totaling $59,500, with $11,000 to the First Baptist Church and the residue to the Church.
- Church offered to fund cash requirements to satisfy bequests, taxes, and costs with a plan to receive the residue in kind by future transfer.
- Locke rejected the Church proposal, claiming lack of authority to consent to arrangement contradicting the will.
- Orphans’ Court (Feb. 25, 2014 hearing) denied the Church’s injunction petition (Mar. 5, 2014 order) and stated it would not authorize sale but would enjoin proposed sales if the Church funded estate needs.
- Locke appealed on Apr. 4, 2014; the court issued Rule 1925(b) guidance and later recommended quashing as interlocutory; jurisdictional analysis precedes merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 5, 2014 order is immediately appealable. | Locke argues under Rule 342(a)(6) or collateral order under Rule 313. | The order is not one of the enumerated appealable categories and is not a collateral order. | Interlocutory; not appealable; appeal quashed. |
| Whether post-Stricker/Ash framework supports treating the order as appealable. | Rule 342 amendments and Ash support immediate review. | Under Stricker/Ash, the order does not resolve an interest in property and is not appealable. | Still interlocutory; not an appealable order under Rule 342 or collateral doctrine. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Stricker, 977 A.2d 1115 (Pa. 2009) (interlocutory order directing sale of real estate not appealable; Rule 342 changes later altered finality analysis)
- Ash, 73 A.3d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2013) (order to sell real estate not dispositive of interests; Rule 342(a)(6) not applied to negate Stricker)
- Maslowski's Estate, 104 A.675 (Pa. 1918) (orders directing sale of estate property typically not final or collateral for immediate appeal)
- Habazin, 679 A.2d 1293 (Pa. 1996) (recognizes non-final nature of certain probate sale orders)
- Quinn, 805 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 2002) (finality tied to final accounting; distribution orders are not automatic final appeals)
- Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (untimely Rule 1925(b) could waive issues, but jurisdictional review precedes waiver analysis)