- 20 -
respect to the validity of the $50,000 legacy to Ms. Hurley,
finding that the legacy was induced by fraud.7
On April 17, 1996, the administrators pro tem. and Ms. Hurley
entered into a settlement agreement which disposed of all claims
possessed by the estate for acts committed by Ms. Hurley on or
before June 1, 1989.
On March 26, 1999, the Orphans’ Court entered an opinion and
decree dismissing the renewed objections filed by the
administrators pro tem. with respect to Ms. Hurley’s account of the
estate on the ground that those objections were disposed of in the
prior proceeding and thus barred under the doctrine of res
judicata. The administrators pro tem. then asked the superior
court for permission to appeal the Orphans’ Court’s dismissal of
their renewed objections to Ms. Hurley’s first and final account.
Their request was denied on June 15, 1999.
Suit Against Eckell, Sparks
On March 13, 1995, the administrators pro tem. and the Glovers
(referred to collectively as the plaintiffs) filed an action in the
court of commons pleas against Eckell, Sparks seeking damages for
the actions and conduct of the law firm over the 4-year period from
June of 1989 to June of 1993. The plaintiffs retained the law firm
7 On Feb. 6, 1996, the Glovers filed a petition for
allowance of appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,
appealing the superior court’s Jan. 11, 1996, judgment. On Jan.
16, 1997, the Supreme Court denied the Glovers’ appeal.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011