J

- A25020

- 22

IN RE: ESTATE OF HERMAN EDWARD RAWLINGS, DECEASED

APPEAL OF: EDWARD D. RAWLINGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HERMAN E. RAWLINGS, DECEASED, ANN R. HOOVER, AND AMY R. WILLIAMS : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 209 WDA 2022
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. J UDGMENT ORDER B Y NICHOLS, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 6, 2023 Briefly, t his matter came before the orphans ’ court on a petition and an amended petition for a R ule to Show C ause Why Funds Should not be Returned to the E s tate of Herman E. Rawlings (the Estate) , filed by M ary Bell e Rawlings (Decedent’s Wife ), in a probate dispute with Edward D. Rawlings ( the
Executor ) , the son of H erma n E

. R awlings (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 ,

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 See 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 Super., Jul. 22, 2019) ( Rawlings I ) (unpublished mem.).J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

- 2

-

and made Decedent ’ s Children potential judgment debtors of the Estate. The
Executor is o ne of Decedent ’ s Children

. Thomas J. Dempsey, Jr., Esq

. , represents both Decedent’s Children and the Executor

. Accordingly, we

v acate 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 a nd the Executor/ Estate ’ s interests as the party owed th e 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 “t he 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

. Se e 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 C hildren “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 w here they were not parties and may not

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 Decedent’s Wife died on January 25, 2020, during remand and her estate was substituted as a party. See Substitutio n of Party Notice, 7/29/20.J

- A25020

- 22

- 3

-

have been aggrieved by the order on app eal in Rawlings I

. Decedent’s Children’s potential liability to the Estate was n ot 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 D ecedent ’ 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). Moreove r, t he 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 la w of the case prohibition applies only where the appellate court ruled on a specific issue. Id. Here, because
t he 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. W here 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 tha t the Estate was held liable to Mrs. Rawlings

. For these reaso ns, we conclude that our appellate review in the instant appeal is impeded due to the absence of a record and findings on the above

-J

- A25020

- 22

- 4

-

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