noting that, the testator used survivorship language in the bequest to his wife, which clearly demonstrated that the testator “knew how to override the statute had he intended to do so”
How later courts described this case
- noting that, the testator used survivorship language in the bequest to his wife, which clearly demonstrated that the testator “knew how to override the statute had he intended to do so”
- providing “the determination of whether the executor’s fees are reasonable is left to the sound discretion of the orphans’ court”
- noting the orphans’ court cited a single, out-of-state case in support of its decision, which it argues is inapplicable here
- reducing the executor’s commission to approximately 3% of the “inventory value” of the estate
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DISSENTING OPINION BY
COLVILLE, J.:
¶ 1 For the reasons that follow, I would quash this appeal.
¶ 2 Appellant appeals the order of August 3, 2007. That order does not involve the validity of a will. Therefore, the ap-pealability of such interlocutory orders under Pa.R.A.P. 311 is irrelevant.
¶ 3 In an estate, the order confirming the account is the final, appealable order. Matter of Estate of Meininger, 367 Pa.Super. 105 , 532 A.2d 475, 477 (1987). The order in this case directed the filing of an amended account. When the Executor files that account and the court issues an order confirming it, that order will be the final, appealable order. Id.
¶ 4 I note also that the Orphans’ Court did not certify the order as final under Pa.R.A.P. 342. Additionally, the order in question does not qualify as a collateral order subject to immediate appeal. See In re Estate of Petro, 694 A.2d 627, 630 (Pa.Super.1997); Pa.R.A.P. 313.
¶ 5 In short, I would find the order not appealable and, as such, would quash this appeal. Accordingly, I dissent.