- 41 - For various reasons stated, infra, we do not credit Tupitza's testimony. In this instance we think petitioner failed to pursue any collection activities against Lynch and Reardon to recover the amounts that the Orphans' Court ordered them to refund to the estate, after the estate entered into a settlement agreement with Reardon sometime in late 1989 or early 1990, and after Lynch's petition in bankruptcy was dismissed on August 22, 1990. In eight status reports filed with this Court from November 28, 1986, through September 1, 1989, the estate informed this Court that this case had been settled and that a final decision would be submitted when the fee dispute involving Lynch and Reardon was concluded. As previously noted, the fee dispute involving Lynch and Reardon was disposed of on January 15, 1991, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Lynch's petition for the allowance of an appeal. In a status report filed with the Court on March 9, 1992, respondent informed the Court: 4. Petitioner now wishes to abandon the claims which she is defending (sic) in state court litigation and be allowed a deduction for the entire amounts paid on the theory that it is unlikely the estate will ever collect the monies ordered to be repaid to the estate. * * * * * * * 9. This report has been discussed with James Tupitza, Esquire, counsel for petitioners (sic).Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011