Court Opinion

ID: 9698283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:46:38.10779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:39.865289
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Hoffman, J.:
I join in the finding of the majority that under prior law and the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service of the garnishee was valid so that he may be ordered to refrain from acting with respect to estate funds located in New Jersey. I- am not convinced, however, that policy should, support such a result which would allow judgments so obtained to be enforceable against an estate being administered in another state. While it is true that our Com: monwealth does have a strong interest in this case in light of plaintiff’s residence here, New Jersey has, what appears to me, to be a stronger countervailing interest in the orderly administration of its estates. Under such circumstances I question whether New Jersey should be required to be bound by a judgment resulting from the fortuitous presence of an executor in another state. I similarily recognize how we in Pennsylvania might not wish to give effect to a judgment obtained in a remote jurisdiction merely because an executor happened to pass through it. In my opinion, the fiduciary of an estate should not be subject to service in a foreign state unless and to the extent that he is acting there. This, however, is a matter for consideration by our legislature and by the Supreme Court in a review of the Rules of Civil Procedure.