Court Opinion

ID: 9649277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:47:25.042487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:09.538742
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen :
In my opinion, the antenuptial agreement reflects an intention on the part of each party thereto that in the event that the Anderson Street property were sold appellee would receive ten thousand dollars from any assets of the estate other than the business property. Indeed, appellee is herself partly responsible for the sale of the Anderson Street property because she joined in the conveyance. She could have protected her interests at that time by requiring that testator set aside for her the fund she now seeks from the sale of the business property.
Furthermore, although not an issue in this appeal, I would admonish the lower court to follow the practice set forth in Ellis v. Ellis, 415 Pa. 412, 203 A. 2d 547 (1964), wherein we held that the court of common pleas, not the orphans’ court, has jurisdiction, over the dissolution of partnerships and an accounting of the interests of the partners (living or deceased) therein. Only after the common pleas court has determined the value of the share of the deceased partner can the executor be surcharged for breach of fiduciary obligation. I, therefore, think that the court’s action in surcharging appellant was patently erroneous.
Finally, I would add that although the business property may have been titled in the name of testator alone, it may in fact have been an asset of the partnership, with the result that his estate could not acquire a greater right than he possessed during his lifetime. Ellis v. Ellis, supra.
I dissent.