- 23 -
Sparks9 and that the Glovers lacked standing to assert a claim for
any malpractice that Eckell, Sparks may have committed while
handling matters for the estate; (4) dismissing with prejudice
count IV, finding that the administrators pro tem. lacked standing
since they did not allege conduct covered by RICO, and that the
Glovers lacked standing to bring such an action under RICO against
Eckell, Sparks; and (5) dismissing with prejudice count V, finding
that a claim for punitive damages was not a separate cause of
action and that the plaintiffs had not alleged sufficient facts to
support their assertion that Eckell, Sparks’s conduct was
“outrageous”. The plaintiffs appealed to the superior court.
The superior court affirmed the order of the lower court
except with regard to the dismissal of the predeath malpractice
claim by the administrators pro tem. against Eckell, Sparks. The
superior court reversed and remanded the case for consideration of
that claim.
On April 17, 2000, the Orphans’ Court, sua sponte, raised the
issue of the reasonableness of the compensation paid by the estate
to Ms. Hurley and Eckell, Sparks. The Orphans’ Court entered an
opinion and decree requiring Ms. Hurley and Eckell, Sparks to repay
the amounts they had received from decedent’s estate.
9 The court, however, granted the administrators pro tem.
additional time to file an amended complaint to state adequate
facts establishing breach of duty and causation in count III.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011