In Re Estate of Bell
343 A.2d 679
Pa.
1975
Check Treatment

*1 duty is the of this Court in Tower I. On it contrary, “be orphans’ require that distribution and of the the audit.” at the time of in effect controlled at Arrott supra, 217 A.2d re orphans’ would vacate the decree entry decree of a court for the mand case to that There application of to Tower’s will. based on the Tafel fore, I dissent.

MANDERINO, joins in this dissent. BELL, R. Deceased. In re ESTATE of Samuel Appeal A. BAXTER. of Edward Pennsylvania. Supreme Argued Jan. 1975. July 1975.

Decided Rehearing Sept. Denied 1975. *2 deFuria, T. Labrum, Jr., Francis

Joseph Guy G. T. appel- Petrikin, for Sbandi, Fronefield, Media, & deFuria lant. Cofsky, Feldman &

Stephen Feldman, C. M. Donald appellee, Ann Bell Shoustal Feldman, Philadelphia, for (nee Bell). Ann & Sparks, Vadino, Auerbach Sparks, Eckell

W. Donald guardian ad li- Monte, appellee trustee Media, for tem. Media, ap- Bell, Jr., Pugh,

Donald Clarence D. H. *3 pellees, R. Bell. trustees under the will of Samuel EAGEN, O’BRIEN, JONES, ROB-

Before C. and MANDERINO, ERTS, POMEROY, JJ. and NIX OPINION JONES, Chief Justice. attempt to trilogy of cases which the third of a is

This adopted portions of rights children to relitigate the of adjudicat- rights previously funds, been had trust which by of this adversely adopted children decisions ed Court. leaving 29, 1937, Last January his on

Samuel Bell died perti- August 22, 1934. Testament dated Will and provided for identical trusts nent of the will sections except were that three sons each of children his six age thirty-five principal at of distribution receive daughters distribution to receive no while the were daughters the principal. of the life tenant On the death her” principal to the to be distributed “children was living none, if to the or, the life tenant death of living

“issue” then any deceased child of the life ten- Baxter, ant. Emma Bell daughters one the tes- tator, died on June 1965. Mrs. Baxter no natu- had ral only legally children was survived adopted her son, Baxter, present appellant. Edward A. Edward adopted was before the death of the testator.

In Bell (1970) 267 A.2d 862 (hereinafter I), per Bell we affirmed curiam the Or- phans’ Court decree which denied to Edward Baxter his adoptive principal. mother’s share of appeal, In that question of the intent of Samuel Bell was before R. per this Court. Our curiam affirmance Bell be must interpreted by implication (1) to hold either the intent Samuel adopted Bell was clear to the effect that children were to be excluded from the distributive scheme of testamentary trust, (2) that the expressed testator regard adopted intent in that, therefore, children and presumption the now defunct arose that testator intend- adopted ed to exclude children from the distributive scheme. light

Bell I now be erroneous in our decision (1972), wherein Tafel express it was held that absent an intention in the testa- adopted tor’s will to exclude children, pre- this Court will adopted sume that the testator meant to treat children the same manner as natural children. After the Tafel *4 decision, petitioned again Edward Baxter the A. Or- phans’ Court for a in review of its earlier decision the matter, alleging same permit of errors law which would pursuant Probate, of Section 3521 the Estates petition Code, and Fiduciaries 20 3521, Pa.S. since his § years was filed five of the decision of this within Court. payable None of the principal, which would be to Ed- yet here, ward A. Baxter if he succeeded has been dis- tributed.

113 101, 674 93, 671, A.2d Estate, In Tower Judgments 7, 1975), § (filed July the Restatement that: (1942) to the effect was cited opportunity been afforded has a reasonable “Where which litigate a court a claim before parties to the of ac- parties cause jurisdiction and the the has over controversy, finally the decided tion, and the has require parties and of the State interests the actually any validity claims and issue of the that litigated again by not be litigated in the shall action them.” judicial of the change view subsequent

A adjudication finality prior aof has no effect on the Estate, judicata. Tower of res under doctrine Au River Port 671; Delaware 93, Pa. at Utility Commission, 408 Pennsylvania thority Public “separate 169, (1962). Nor A.2d 682 is judicata principle (cf. Tower exception to the res funds” 214, A.2d 307 supra; Estate, Brown 3, 88 A. (1962); Kellerman’s case, since (1913)) appellant available adop appellant’s principal share in trust of the held was in controver is the fund which tive mother identical sy Bell I. then to whether Section 3521

The issue narrows 3521, Code, 20 Probate, Fiduciaries Pa.S. § Estates and judicial doc- statutory provision a which defeats is judicata trine of res in this instance. 13, P.L. (formerly 1840, October Act

Section 3521 Act of 1, 1, 447, 48, Act June § P.L. § VII, provides: April 18, 721), P.L. art. § years aft- any party shall, five in interest within “If personal a any er the confirmation account of final part any representative, petition to file a adjudica- report, or of the account or an auditor’s setting spe- distribution, forth tion, any or of decree of *5 eifically alleged give errors the court therein, shall justice equity relief require: shall Pro- vided, impose liability That no such shall on personal representative any property toas which was by distributed him in accordance with a decree filing petition. before the or considering petition master may in include his ad- judication findings or report, of fact and of law as to controversy, pursuance the entire of which a final may order be made.” long Pennsylvania

A line of cases has inter preted predecessors legislative statute and this its as a Orphans’ discretionary extension Court’s inherent power to review and correct its own “The ob decrees. ject 1841, 1840, 1, Act of October P.L. 13, [the § 1] seems to have been make a bill of in the Or phans’ right, pre Court a matter of time and at the same power.” scribe a limitation of time to exercise of the Appeal, 318, Kinter’s (1869). Accord, 62 Pa. Stet Estate, 62, son’s (1931); 305 Pa. Meckel’s 155 A. 856 Appeal, (1886). Irrespective 112 Pa. 4 A. 447 statute, Orphans’ possesses an Court inherent dis cretionary recognized right, law, correct common its justice. own records and decrees the interest of Estate, Willing’s (1930); 150 A. 98 Huff’s (1927); Es Troutman’s A. 751 tate, (1921); 113 A. 405 Sloan’s discretionary (1916). Therefore, A. 966 Orphans’ in the Court to review its own decrees by changed was never line which culmi statutes Orphans’ nated in still, Section 3521. The long-established accordance with the practice, entertain a petition notwithstanding for review a decree confir by Court, mation only questions but were where the passed upon naturally appeal. or raised This would include cases after-discovered evidence fraud. But where issues court and have been decided the lower *6 powerless, un Orphans’ appeal, Court is affirmed on the statute, these issues to entertain der common law or Commonwealth, 347 again Lawler by bill review. v. Estate, Pa. 568, (1943); 432 Pa. Graham’s 302 421, Bailey’s Estate, 291 Pa. 140 208, (1931); A. 153 136 15, Pa.Super. 169 Estate, 111 (1927); Lockhart’s A. 145 for provided have (1933). statutes which 475 The A. Orphans’ merely de peremptory by the Court if a review Orphans’ entertain manded that the Orphans’ years, presented five The within bill was always its been limited Court’s of review has portions its which decrees own and to those decrees nothing appeal. in Sec on There is dealt with not were judi judicial of res tion which defeats the doctrine 3521 holdings of this cata as to Court. prede-

Furthermore, reviewing Court, in this and interpre- guidelines for statutes, has forth cessor set tation of the statutes: and exercise 7, Act of June of the Fiduciaries

“Under Section 48 provides 3521], which 1917, 20 447 Pa.S. [now § P.L. account, in an petitions of correct errors report, settled that adjudication, or it is auditor’s right (1) only granted review will be where appearing upon face there are errors of law record; (2) arisen where new since matter has jus- decree; (3) where confirmation of the account person will require equity tice a review and thereby: 310, 113 Estate, Pa. suffer Troutman’s 270 337, Willing’s Estate, A. [1921]; 135 A. 405 Bailey’s 421, 140 A. 145 [1927]; 751 291 A. [1927]; 117, 200 35 Reamer’s 331 . . .” [1938]. 227-28, 17, 18

Osterling’s Estate, 225, A.2d (1940). by petition for review only factor raised changed the law which

is that decision Tafel possibly for the have been basis earlier decision the instant are this con- matter. We not convinced that stitutes an error of law on the face of the record: change

“It is well settled that in the substantive a upon rule law which a former decree was based does apparent ‘an error of create on face’ justifying that decree, or ‘new matter’ relief bill 407, 411, Littlefield, See review. Scotten v. 235 U.S. S.Ct. 125, L.Ed. 289 [1914] ; Simmons Co. Co., 196, Grier Bros. S.Ct. U.S. 66 L.Ed. 475 [1922] ; Miller v. McCutcheon, N.J. Eq. 123, 175 A. 95 A.L.R. 702. . . .” *7 Philadelphia, Frantz v. 224, 3 A.2d 917 (1939). Accord, (O.C. Trust, Scott 40 Pa.D. & C. Phila.1941). Temple, Love See (1966); Hey, Bolton v. 31 A. 1097 (1895). Probate, Section the Estates and Fidu provides exception supersession ciaries Code no of the judicata principle appellant’s res claim fail. must postscript a As we must state that we means in- upon progressive to tend intrude the statutes and cases cumulatively granting which have equal in in- succeeded rights adopted heritance to children. the As between parties action, equities weigh to we feel that the in grandson. adopted of the favor However, there is anoth- weighed er interest which must be here —the interest of and, system. the Commonwealth particular, in its courts Although compelled this Court and others are often to prior decisions, sig- overrule such action cannot a become re-agitation nal of the overruled cause action. Litigation must come to a conclusive accounts end and point must some be at The state’s interest in the rest. finality litigation merely attempt is more than to an judicata imparts clear the dockets. The res doctrine upon the law a settling society. influence finali- Without parties ty, adverse would continue to be adversaries with party dreaming one an unan- yet satisfaction via long society endure legal right. A could nounced continuing turmoil. pay own costs. Parties to Decree affirmed. J.,

EAGEN, result. concurs dissenting NIX, opinion. J., filed a dissenting ROBERTS, opinion in which a filed MANDERINO, J., joined.

NIX, (dissenting). Justice accept interpreta-

I the unwarranted restrictive cannot Probate, and Fiduci- tion 3521 of Estates Section 1974), (Special Pamphlet, Code, aries Pa.C.S. § majority. ex- employed by two In addition Orphans’ pressed limitations on im- majority today actions, the Division to reconsider its prevent recon- poses from It would that court a third. change light in the sidering a former action a upon on passed question was in the interim where appeal. appellate error or aban-

Where an confessed has doctrine, to see a disservice doned a former fail system allowing orderly the Or- operation our *8 upon proper phans’ Division, petition under Court section, provisions action of this conform earlier to its "equity believe accordance with the new Because I view. justice” given I re- require to must such relief be and spectfully dissent. (dissenting).

ROBERTS, Justice Probate, and of the Estates Fiduciaries Section 3521 impos- Pamphlet, Code, (Special 1974), 20 Pa.C.S. § orphans’ to an court es two limitations on petition five must filed within be review its decrees: years of an and account, final confirmation after personal repre- “impose liability on the court any property as to sentative which was distributed him in accordance with a decree of before the fil- ing petition.” import judicially of the I would creat- ed to barriers into statute.

Because neither limitation statutory would bar review case, orphans’ “give was bound equity relief justice require and shall .” . . . majority equities weight Concedes that “the in favor adopted grandson.” view, of the my In Ante at 682. that dispose conclusion is sufficient this case. orphans’ would remand the case court for prior light decree and revision of Tafel (1972). Therefore, I dissent. MANDERINO, J., joins in this dissent. 344 A.2d 277

Margaret McCONNELL, Petitioner, A.

E. Edward SCHMIDT.

No. 833 Allocatur Docket.

Supreme Pennsylvania. Sept. 4,

Decided 1975. Wettick, Jr., petitioner. R. Pittsburgh, Stanton for John Adams, Jr., V. Adams Hillen, Pittsburgh, & appellee. JONES,

Before EAGEN, O'BRIEN, C. ROB- ERTS, POMEROY, MANDERINO, NIX and JJ.