# In Re Estate of Harper

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · June 1, 2009 · 2009 Pa. Super. 104

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691853

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re ESTATE OF Samuel W. HARPER, Deceased. Appeal of Samuel Carl Harper, Executor and Beneficiary, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 1, 2009
- **Citations:** 2009 Pa. Super. 104; 975 A.2d 1155; 2009 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1001; 2009 WL 1510255
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Colville
- **Judges:** Elliott, Donohue, Colville
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691853

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- noting the orphans’ court cited a single, out-of-state case in support of its decision, which it argues is inapplicable here

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691853. Public record. Not legal advice.