In re the Estate of Ash
73 A.3d 1287
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Ray Ash died testate; will directed sale of remaining property to fund three residual beneficiaries, including Appellant Heit.
- Appellant, as executor, conveyed Tract 1 to himself; deed later voided by Orphans’ Court order January 27, 2012; Appellant removed as executor.
- Administratrix sought to sell all three tracts to Fetter; Appellant petitioned for forced sale and easement over Tract 2.
- Orphans’ Court denied petition and authorized sale of all three tracts to Fetter on January 16, 2013; Appellant appealed.
- Appellant argued the court abused discretion by not ordering public auction of Tract 1; court found the appeal interlocutory and non-appealable.
- Court cited Stricker to hold the order was not final or collateral; jurisdiction to address merits was lacking; appeal quashed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the order appealable? | Heit argues Stricker allows appeal. | Court held order interlocutory; not appealable under Rule 342. | Not appealable; no jurisdiction to address merits. |
| Does Stricker control despite Rule 342 changes? | Stricker governs appealability of estate sales. | Rule 342 updates modify appealability, not Stricker. | Stricker controls; order not appealable. |
| Does the post-Strickler Rule 342 regime render this order appealable? | Post-Strickler Rule 342 would allow appeal of real property determinations. | The order does not determine an interest in real property under Rule 342(a)(6). | Still not appealable; Stricker remains controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Stricker, 602 Pa. 54, 977 A.2d 1115 (Pa. 2009) (interlocutory sale orders in estate context are not appealable)
- In re Estate of Allen, 960 A.2d 470 (Pa. Super.2008) (lack of appealability when not final or collateral; jurisdictional restraint)