Court Opinion

ID: 9518144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:44:38.947901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:33.127931
License: Public Domain

Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
The majority states that as the will directs an equal division of the residue, “it is not possible that an order to sell estate property in pursuit of such division is collateral to the main cause of action. It is, in fact, central to the main cause of action.” Majority Op., at 61, 977 A.2d at 1119 (emphasis in original). While I agree the order before us was neither a final order, nor a collateral one, I believe this pronouncement is capable of being read too broadly.
For example, if the executor sold the property and on behalf of the estate took a mortgage from the buyer, the estate could not be settled for the term of the mortgage. While the residual beneficiaries may petition for an interim accounting or other relief, the denial of such relief should be subject to appeal without waiting until the mortgage was satisfied and the final accounting filed, a delay that could easily run 20 or more years.
That is, the personal representative of the estate cannot preclude appellate review of his actions by acts that unreason*65ably delay the final accounting. Understanding such facts are not before us, I write only to note that there may be exceptions to the bright-line rule framed by the majority opinion.