- 18 -
pro tem., among other things, objected to Ms. Hurley’s executrix’s
commission ($250,000) and the attorney’s fees paid to Eckell,
Sparks ($247,500). Further, they requested that Ms. Hurley and
Eckell, Sparks be surcharged for the $125,000 they alleged Mr.
Glover spent on attorney’s fees while uncovering the acts of
concealment, obstruction, and malfeasance by Ms. Hurley and Eckell,
Sparks. A hearing on the objections was deferred pending the
outcome of the civil action.
On November 2, 1994, the Orphans’ Court issued an opinion and
decree nisi dismissing the Glovers’ appeal. The opinion concluded
(1) that decedent was of a sound mind and possessed testamentary
capacity at the time of the execution of the 1989 will, and (2)
that the 1989 will was not the result of undue influence or fraud.
Consequently, the court found that the 1989 will was valid and
properly admitted to probate. However, the Orphans’ Court entered
a judgment against Ms. Hurley and in favor of the administrators
pro tem. for $1,383,603.32 ($1,058,603.32 for restitution to
decedent’s estate for breach of fiduciary duty owed, and $325,000
for interest on income tax and tax penalties, as a consequence of
her failure to turn over information to decedent’s accountant
needed to file timely tax returns and to make tax payments).
On November 15, 1994, the Glovers filed exceptions to the
Orphans’ Court’s decree, requesting that the court change and/or
modify its decree to find (1) that the 1989 will was invalid for
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011