- 32 -
Federal estate tax purposes. Id. at 465. But we should and will
give “proper regard” to the Orphans’ Court’s interpretation of
Pennsylvania substantive law. Id.
We believe that the order of the Orphans’ Court directing
Eckell, Sparks to repay the fees received from the estate had a
major bearing on the law firm’s decision to make the $750,000
settlement payment and that the order should be given significant
weight with respect to the apportionment of the settlement
proceeds. The $750,000 was intended to settle all claims made
against Eckell, Sparks, including the estate’s claim for the return
of the $247,500 of fees. Indeed, had Eckell, Sparks failed to
repay the entire $247,500, it would have been in contempt of the
order of the Orphans’ Court.
The totality of the uncontradicted evidence in this case
persuades us that it was the intent of Eckell, Sparks to have
$247,500 of the $750,000 settlement amount be for (and thus
$247,500 should be allocated to) the attorney’s fees that the
Orphans’ Court ordered be returned to the estate, leaving the
balance of the $750,000 settlement to be allocated among all other
claims involved in the proceedings. In this regard, we are mindful
that the $247,500 paid to Eckell, Sparks by the estate came from
funds that had been included in determining decedent’s gross
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011