- 19 -
lack of due execution (i.e., it was a product of fraud, undue
influence, and lack of capacity); (2) that the interlineations were
invalid for lack of due execution; (3) that all fiduciary and
beneficial provisions in favor of Ms. Hurley were invalid and
should be stricken; and (4) that the appeal from probate be
sustained.
On February 9, 1995, the en banc court of common pleas of
Chester, County, Pennsylvania, Orphans’ Court Division, entered an
opinion and order (the en banc court decision) rejecting the
arguments made in the exceptions filed by the Glovers and made its
decree final, upholding the validity of the 1989 will by decedent.6
On March 6, 1995, the Glovers appealed the en banc court
decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On January 11,
1996, the superior court filed its judgment, In re Estate of
Glover, 669 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996), affirming in part and
reversing in part the en banc court decision. The superior court
sustained the en banc court decision that the 1989 will was valid;
however, it reversed the Orphans’ Court’s determination with
6 On Dec. 9, 1994, Ms. Hurley filed a petition for relief
under ch. 11 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The administrators pro tem. filed a
motion to dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. sec. 1112(b) against Ms.
Hurley citing “bad faith”. After 5 months of litigation, the
bankruptcy court dismissed Ms. Hurley’s case “for cause” under 11
U.S.C. sec. 1112(b). Ms. Hurley appealed that decision to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but
in June 1995, she withdrew her appeal.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011