In Re: Estate of Rawlings, H. Appeal of: Rawlings ( 2023 )

J-A25020-22
IN RE: ESTATE OF HERMAN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
EDWARD RAWLINGS, DECEASED : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: EDWARD D. :
RAWLINGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS :
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF :
HERMAN E. RAWLINGS, DECEASED, :
ANN R. HOOVER, AND AMY R. : No. 209 WDA 2022
WILLIAMS
Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans’ Court at
No(s): 02-15-4373
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 6, 2023
Briefly, this matter came before the orphans’ court on a petition and an
amended petition for a Rule to Show Cause Why Funds Should not be Returned
to the Estate of Herman E. Rawlings (the Estate), filed by Mary Belle Rawlings
(Decedent’s Wife), in a probate dispute with Edward D. Rawlings (the
Executor), the son of Herman E. Rawlings (Decedent). This Court reversed
the orphans’ court’s January 29, 2018 order awarding Decedent’s Wife
$300,000 from the Estate, and remanded for the orphans’ court to prepare an
adjusted calculation based on legally sufficient evidence.1 Review of the
record indicates that the orphans’ court’s January 25, 2022 order, inter alia,
directed Ann R. Hoover, Amy R. Williams, and Edward D. Rawlings in their
individual capacities (collectively, Decedent’s Children) to repay the Estate,
____________________________________________
1See In re Estate of Rawlings, 274 WDA 2018, 2019 WL 3290643, at *1-
8 (Pa. Super., Jul. 22, 2019) (Rawlings I) (unpublished mem.).
J-A25020-22
and made Decedent’s Children potential judgment debtors of the Estate. The
Executor is one of Decedent’s Children. Thomas J. Dempsey, Jr., Esq.,
represents both Decedent’s Children and the Executor. Accordingly, we
vacate the January 25, 2022 order and remand to the orphans’ court for
further proceedings to determine whether there is a conflict of interest
between Decedent’s Children as debtors to the Estate and the
Executor/Estate’s interests as the party owed the debt. See Seifert v.
Dumatic Indust. Inc., 197 A.2d 454, 456 (Pa. 1964) (providing that courts
may raise questions concerning a conflict of interest sua sponte); Middleberg
v. Middleberg, 233 A.2d 889, 890 (Pa. 1967) (stating that “the test of a
conflicting interest is not the actuality of conflict, but the possibility that
conflict may arise”); see also Pa.R.P.C. 1.7, 1.13.
Following resolution of the conflict issue, we direct the orphans’ court to
address its conclusion that the Decedent’s Children waived certain appellate
issues or that these issues were barred by the doctrine of law of the case.
See Orphans’ Ct. Op., 4/6/22, at 3-4 (stating that issues concerning the
timeliness of Decedent’s Wife’s claim,2 the Dead Man’s Act, Decedent’s Wife’s
waiver of a share of the Estate, jurisdiction, and liability of the Decedent’s
Children “should have been raised in the initial proceedings”). We are
concerned with the conclusion that Decedent’s Children could have presented
or waived issues in the prior appeal where they were not parties and may not
____________________________________________
2Decedent’s Wife died on January 25, 2020, during remand and her estate
was substituted as a party. See Substitution of Party Notice, 7/29/20.
-2-
J-A25020-22
have been aggrieved by the order on appeal in Rawlings I. Decedent’s
Children’s potential liability to the Estate was not determined by this Court in
the prior appeal. See Rawlings I, at *7. The issue was addressed for the
first time in the orphans’ court’s January 25, 2022 order. Accordingly, it does
not appear that Decedent’s Children could have raised the instant issues until
the orphans’ court filed its January 25, 2022 order, therefore, Decedent’s
Children may not have waived appellate issues instantly, if they were not
aggrieved parties. See Pa.R.A.P. 501; see also Richards v. Ameriprise
Financial, Inc., 217 A.3d 854, 864 (Pa. Super. 2019) (holding that a party
cannot be faulted for failing to appeal an issue where it was not an aggrieved
party). Moreover, the law of the case doctrine precludes the trial court from
reopening issues that were decided by a higher court in an earlier appeal in
the same case. See Heart Care Consultants, LLC v. Albataineh, 239 A.3d
126, 131 (Pa. Super. 2020). However, the law of the case prohibition applies
only where the appellate court ruled on a specific issue. Id. Here, because
the Rawlings I Court did not rule on any issues concerning the Decedent’s
Children, the law of the case doctrine would not apply to those claims as the
orphans’ court concluded. Where no issues were decided as to the Decedent’s
Children in the prior litigation, the law of the case doctrine appears to apply
only to the Executor, underscoring the potential for conflict as it is undisputed
that the Estate was held liable to Mrs. Rawlings.
For these reasons, we conclude that our appellate review in the instant
appeal is impeded due to the absence of a record and findings on the above-
-3-
J-A25020-22
described issues. See, e.g., Richards, 217 A.3d at 872. Therefore, we are
constrained to vacate the January 25, 2022 order, and remand to the orphans’
court for further proceedings consistent with this judgment order.
Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/6/2023
-4-