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.

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, 

____________________________________________

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 Super., Jul. 22, 2019) (Rawlings I) (unpublished mem.).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 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,2the 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 

____________________________________________

2 Decedent’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.
J-A25020-22

- 3 -

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-
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