Estate of Helen Turnbull

13 Citing cases

  1. Willing's Estate

    135 A. 751 (Pa. 1927)   Cited 24 times

    Under the three cases of Grim's App., 109 Pa. 391; Grim's Est., 147 Pa. 190, and Reed's Est., 237 Pa. 125, we are not precluded from asking that inequalities in the distribution of funds of a continuing trust shall be rectified upon a further accounting. A distributive income account is conclusive only as to the fund distributed: Kellerman's Est., 242 Pa. 3; Turnbull's Est., 88 Pa. Super. 482. Maurice Bower Saul, with him R. M. Remick, for the Pennsylvania Company for Insurances on Lives and Granting Annuities, Trustee under will of Mathilda Lee Willing, appellee. — Appellants had their day in court and are not entitled to another: Millikin's App., 227 Pa. 502; Been's Est., 13 Pa. Dist. R. 695; Wetherill's Est., 8 W.N.C. 238; Scott's App., 112 Pa. 427; Michener's Est., 225 Pa. 66.

  2. In re Sisak

    120 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 15, 2022)

    See Horner v. First Pa. Banking & Trust Co., 194 A.2d 335, 339 (Pa. 1963) ("powers of the [o]rphans' [c]ourt did not terminate upon final distribution"). Indeed, it is well recognized that orphans' courts have the inherent power to review decrees and this power should be "liberally exercised." Estate of Turnbull, 88 Pa. Super. 482, 494 (1926).

  3. In re Estate of Litostansky

    499 Pa. 321 (Pa. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    There was available to the beneficiary in this estate a proper remedy by exception and appeal from the decrees of the court below, and to substitute now in the place thereof a review of all the accounts filed and adjudicated, and to jeopardize the propriety of the distributions made thereunder, would be violative of the rule that the period for exception and appeal cannot be enlarged or renewed by a petition for review. Such would be the effect of the granting of the petitions in the present case: Sherwood'sEst., 206 Pa. 465 [56 A. 20]; Troutman's Est., supra; Bailey's Est., supra Turnbull's Est., 88 Pa. Super. 482.Id., 337 Pa. at 229, 10 A.2d at 19.

  4. Stotesbury Estate

    128 A.2d 587 (Pa. 1957)   Cited 5 times

    That the petitioners did not raise the question at the time of the audit and confirmation of the account or upon the entry of the adjudication is not valid ground for denying the petitioners the desired relief. In Willing's Estate, 288 Pa. 337 EQD,, 135 A. 751, this court said with respect to the power of an orphans' court to review for errors in confirmed accounts, adjudications or decrees of distribution, "But the power formerly existing has been extended, and relief should be granted where justice and equity require, and no one suffers thereby: Troutman's Est. supra; Turnbull's Est., 88 Pa. Super. 482. Irrespective of any legislation, the orphans' court possesses an inherent discretionary power 'to correct its own records in the interest of justice, even to protect parties from the effect of their own mistakes and blunders': Sloan's Est., 254 Pa. 346, 350" (Emphasis supplied). See also Hunter's Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Commonplace Book, Vol. II, p. 1154.

  5. Gerlach Estate

    364 Pa. 207 (Pa. 1950)   Cited 19 times
    In Gerlach, the testator owned a business known as the Allentown Supply Company which he operated as a proprietorship at the time he executed a will containing a specific bequest of his interest in the "business known as the Allentown Supply Company."

    "It is familiar doctrine in the chancery practice that the door of equity is never closed, and as the orphans' court is within its jurisdiction a court governed by equity principles and practice, we think this petition should have been entertained and the case reopened for the introduction of the proposed new testimony": Semple's Estate, 189 Pa. 385, 394, 42 A. 28, 30, 31. The orphans' court "in its discretion may correct its own records in the interest of justice, even to protect parties from the effect of their own mistakes or blunders. This power is inherent in the court independently of the Act of October 13, 1840 (1841), P. L. 1": Sloan's Estate, 254 Pa. 346, 350, 98 A. 966, 967, 968; Chappell's Estate, 264 Pa. 486, 107 A. 846; Troutman's Estate, 270 Pa. 310, 320, 113 A. 405, 408; Bender's Estate, 278 Pa. 199, 203, 122 A. 283, 284; Willing's Estate, 288 Pa. 337, 343, 135 A. 751, 752; Estate of Helen Turnball, 88 Pa. Super. 482, 494. Appellant's complaint that the testimony of some of the appellees should not have been received because they were not competent witnesses under the Act of May 23, 1887, P. L. 158, is not well founded.

  6. Osterling's Estate

    10 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1940)   Cited 7 times

    There was available to the beneficiary in this estate a proper remedy by exception and appeal from the decrees of the court below, and to substitute now in the place thereof a review of all the accounts filed and adjudicated, and to jeopardize the propriety of the distributions made thereunder, would be violative of the rule that the period for exception and appeal cannot be enlarged or renewed by a petition for review. Such would be the effect of the granting of the petitions in the present case: Sherwood's Est., 206 Pa. 465; Troutman's Est., supra; Bailey's Est., supra; Turnbull's Est., 88 Pa. Super. 482. There remains the petition for removal of the executors, in which it is alleged that they have wasted and mismanaged the assets of the estate.

  7. Shugars's Estate

    167 A. 567 (Pa. 1933)   Cited 7 times

    H. O. Bechtel, with him B. V. O'Hara, for appellant. — The general advertisement of the register of wills of the auditing of the estate of William B. Shugars was not the actual notice required by the Acts of Assembly to be given to the plaintiffs: Gallen's Est., 26 W. N.C. 308; Rastaetter's Est., 15 Pa. Super. 549; Penn Training School v. Ins. Co., 127 Pa. 559. The order of the court awarding the balance for distribution was not such a distribution of his said estate as would prevent the plaintiff in this case from having the same reopened: Troutman's Est., 270 Pa. 310; Sloan's Est., 254 Pa. 346; Braum's Est., 90 Pa. Super. 448; Turnbull's Est., 88 Pa. Super. 482. Charles E. Berger, with him Arthur L. Shay, for appellee, cited: Caveny v. Curtis, 257 Pa. 575; Rice v. Braden, 243 Pa. 141; White's Est., 249 Pa. 115; Downing v. Felheim, 309 Pa. 566.

  8. Downing v. Felheim

    164 A. 598 (Pa. 1932)   Cited 15 times

    The orphans' courts may correct their own records in the interest of justice, even to protect parties from the effect of their own mistakes: Sloan's Est., 254 Pa. 346; Nimick's Est., 179 Pa. 591. The power of the orphans' court to grant a review will be liberally exercised though the error does not appear on the face of the record: Sloan's Est., 254 Pa. 346; Turnbull's Est., 88 Pa. Super. 482. Petitioner is not precluded by the decree of distribution: Ehrhart's Est., 31 Pa. Super. 120; Thompson's Est., 19 Pa. Dist. R. 407.

  9. Huff's Estate

    300 Pa. 64 (Pa. 1930)   Cited 11 times

    In addition to section 48 of the Fiduciaries Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 447, 514, which expressly provides for such review, the discretionary power of the orphans' court to grant it is settled beyond question. "Irrespective of any legislation, the orphans' court possesses an inherent discretionary power 'to correct its own records in the interest of justice, even to protect parties from the effect of their own mistakes and blunders' ": Willing's Est., 288 Pa. 337, 343; Sloan's Est., 254 Pa. 346, 350, and see Bender's Est., 278 Pa. 200, 203; Troutman's Est., 270 Pa. 310; Estate of Helen Turnbull, 88 Pa. Super. 482; Mitcheson's Est. (opinion by Judge PENROSE), 11 W. N.C. 240. Furthermore, there is no merit in the contention that the surcharge was based on matters outside of the order opening the confirmation.

  10. In re Estate of Sibenik

    J-A12013-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 27, 2017)

    We have long recognized that Orphans' Courts have the inherent power to review their decrees and that this power should be "liberally exercised." Estate of Turnbull, 88 Pa. Super. 482, 494 (1926). Section 3521 of the PEF Code codifies a specific power of review that may be exercised up to five years after final confirmation of an account if a new matter has arisen.