tripartite test in Pennsylvania

2026Once the contestant has established each prong of this tripartite test, the burden shifts again to the proponent to produce clear and convincing evidence which affirmatively demonstrates the absence of undue influence. -6- J-A28011-25 Id.

2024Id. at 493 (citations and footnote omitted).

2025In re Estate of Byerley, 284 A.3d 1225, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations and quotation marks omitted) (citing to the tripartite test as established in In re Clark’s Estate, 334 A.2d 628, 632 (Pa. 1975). -7- J-S13002-25 Philip generally challenges the orphan’s court’s finding that no undue influence existed in the creation of the 2018 Will.

2023See In re Estate of Byerley, 284 A.3d at 1237 (noting that to prove undue influence, the contestant must establish each prong of the tripartite test before the burden shifts to the proponent of the will).

2016See also Commonwealth v. West, 883 A.2d 654 , 658 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2005) (explaining that per se ineffectiveness does not occur when counsel elected to pursue certain issues in the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and omitted others).

2016See also Commonwealth v. West, 883 A.2d 654 , 658 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2005) (explaining that per se ineffectiveness does not occur when counsel elected to pursue certain issues in the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and omitted others).

2023In re Staico, supra at 990 (citation omitted) In this context, “a confidential relationship exists whenever circumstances make it certain that the parties did not deal on equal terms but that on the one side there was an overmastering influence, and on the other, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed.” Id. at 991 (citation omitted).

2023In re Staico, supra at 990 (citation omitted) In this context, “a confidential relationship exists whenever circumstances make it certain that the parties did not deal on equal terms but that on the one side there was an overmastering influence, and on the other, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed.” Id. at 991 (citation omitted).

2022See Provident Credit, 446 A.2d at 264 ; see also Direct Capital Corp. v. Claypoole, 2022 WL 353652 , at *4-*6 (Pa. Super. 2022) (unpublished memorandum) (analyzing all prongs of the tripartite test in affirming the order denying the petition to open default judgment).

2014After reviewing the three-part test’s complicated nature, and emphasizing the importance of considering “all of the circumstances of the particular case,” id. at 264 (emphasis in original), we elaborated on the necessarily fluid, encompassing nature of the equitable inquiry: We are not suggesting that the tripartite test is not important.

2022Duckson v. Wee Wheelers, Inc., 620 A.2d 1206, 1209 (Pa. Super. 1993) (original brackets and ellipsis omitted); see also Miller Block Co. v. U.S. ____________________________________________ 8 Before undergoing a review of whether a petitioner is entitled to an order opening a default judgment pursuant to Rule 237.3, or upon satisfaction of the tripartite test, “where the [petitioner] asserts that service was improper, a [trial] court must address this issue before considering other factors.” Digital Communications, 223 A.3d at 288 .

1998In Duckson v. Wee Wheelers, Inc., 423 Pa.Super. 251 , 620 A.2d 1206, 1212 (Pa.Super.1993), we examined the circumstances of the case within the framework of the tripartite test and concluded that “[bjased on the foregoing analysis, we hold that the overall equities in this case warrant opening the default judgment.” In Castings Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Klein, 444 Pa.Super. 68 , 663 A.2d 220, 225 (Pa.Super.1995), we refused to weigh the equities in the defendant’s favor and reiterated that a court cannot open a default judgment based upon equities when the defendant has failed to establish al

2019WRENCE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA !/ . 24 . -..;.·_ .. 1 i .. : " �--·. .,. r .' - For Section 2511 (a)(8), this Court extensively applied the tripartite test set forth by !D. re M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2003).11 Lastly, for the Section 2511(b) branch of the analysis, this Court relied on M.A.B., supra, at 448 and T.S.M., supra, at 269 which require that trial courts consider the bonds that exist between a parent and child, as well as myriad other factors, such as love, comfort, safety, and relationships with the fosterfarruly.

2019WRENCE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA !/ . 24 . -..;.·_ .. 1 i .. : " �--·. .,. r .' - For Section 2511 (a)(8), this Court extensively applied the tripartite test set forth by !D. re M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2003).11 Lastly, for the Section 2511(b) branch of the analysis, this Court relied on M.A.B., supra, at 448 and T.S.M., supra, at 269 which require that trial courts consider the bonds that exist between a parent and child, as well as myriad other factors, such as love, comfort, safety, and relationships with the fosterfarruly.

2019See also In re Adoption ofC.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2.015); A.S., supra, at 483 .

2019See also In re Adoption ofC.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2.015); A.S., supra, at 483 .

2018See McFarland v. Whitham, 544 A.2d 929, 930 (Pa. 1988) (stating that an appellant must provide a “justifiable” explanation for his failure to respond to the complaint in a timely manner under the second prong of the tripartite test). -6- J-S80032-17 For the foregoing reasons, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying Defendants’ Petition to strike/open the default judgment.

2018See McFarland v. Whitham, 544 A.2d 929, 930 (Pa. 1988) (stating that an appellant must provide a “justifiable” explanation for his failure to respond to the complaint in a timely manner under the second prong of the tripartite test). -6- J-S80032-17 For the foregoing reasons, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying Defendants’ Petition to strike/open the default judgment.

2017The Majority agrees with the trial court and concludes that the existence of the four manhole covers on the Carrolls’ property should have alerted them to the presence of a network of sewer lines crossing under their property, thus satisfying the tripartite test for the creation of an implied easement set forth in Daddona v. Thorpe, 749 A.2d 475, 481 (Pa. Super. 2000).

2017The Majority agrees with the trial court and concludes that the existence of the four manhole covers on the Carrolls’ property should have alerted them to the presence of a network of sewer lines crossing under their property, thus satisfying the tripartite test for the creation of an implied easement set forth in Daddona v. Thorpe, 749 A.2d 475, 481 (Pa. Super. 2000).

2014Line Builders, Inc., 722 A.2d 189, 193 (Pa. Super.

2003This Court has recognized that “where some showing has been made with regard to each part of the test, a court should not blinder itself and examine each part as though it were a watertight compartment.]” Allegheny Hydro No. 1 v. American Line Builders, 722 A.2d 189, 192 (Pa.Super.1998) (citation omitted).

2010Ass’n v. Bender, 342 Pa.Super. 614 , 493 A.2d 760, 762 (1985) (stating “If this tripartite test is met, the injured party may acquire reformation of the contract or ... avoid the contractual obligations”).

2010Ass’n v. Bender, 342 Pa.Super. 614 , 493 A.2d 760, 762 (1985) (stating “If this tripartite test is met, the injured party may acquire reformation of the contract or ... avoid the contractual obligations”).

2003Mazer v. Sargent Electric Co., 407 Pa. 169 , 180 A.2d 63 (1962); Bon Homme Richard Restaurants Inc., supra; Smith v. SEPTA, 297 Pa. Super. 267 , 443 A.2d 829 (1982); Commonwealth v. Bailey, 278 Pa. Super. 51 , 419 A.2d 1351, 1352 (1980); Corcoran v. Fiorentino, 277 Pa. Super. 256 , 419 A.2d 759 (1980); Public Welfare v. Flowers, 46 Pa. Commw. 326 , 407 A.2d 896 , 897 n.2 (1979); Thompson v. Cortese, 41 Pa. Commw. 174 , 398 A.2d 1079, 1082 (1979); cf. Brigham v. Elgin’s of Philadelphia Inc., 406 Pa. 99 , 176 A.2d 404 (1962) (Personal injury accident occurred May 1958; suit instituted by writ of

2003Mazer v. Sargent Electric Co., 407 Pa. 169 , 180 A.2d 63 (1962); Bon Homme Richard Restaurants Inc., supra; Smith v. SEPTA, 297 Pa. Super. 267 , 443 A.2d 829 (1982); Commonwealth v. Bailey, 278 Pa. Super. 51 , 419 A.2d 1351, 1352 (1980); Corcoran v. Fiorentino, 277 Pa. Super. 256 , 419 A.2d 759 (1980); Public Welfare v. Flowers, 46 Pa. Commw. 326 , 407 A.2d 896 , 897 n.2 (1979); Thompson v. Cortese, 41 Pa. Commw. 174 , 398 A.2d 1079, 1082 (1979); cf. Brigham v. Elgin’s of Philadelphia Inc., 406 Pa. 99 , 176 A.2d 404 (1962) (Personal injury accident occurred May 1958; suit instituted by writ of

2003Mazer v. Sargent Electric Co., 407 Pa. 169 , 180 A.2d 63 (1962); Bon Homme Richard Restaurants Inc., supra; Smith v. SEPTA, 297 Pa. Super. 267 , 443 A.2d 829 (1982); Commonwealth v. Bailey, 278 Pa. Super. 51 , 419 A.2d 1351, 1352 (1980); Corcoran v. Fiorentino, 277 Pa. Super. 256 , 419 A.2d 759 (1980); Public Welfare v. Flowers, 46 Pa. Commw. 326 , 407 A.2d 896 , 897 n.2 (1979); Thompson v. Cortese, 41 Pa. Commw. 174 , 398 A.2d 1079, 1082 (1979); cf. Brigham v. Elgin’s of Philadelphia Inc., 406 Pa. 99 , 176 A.2d 404 (1962) (Personal injury accident occurred May 1958; suit instituted by writ of

2003Mazer v. Sargent Electric Co., 407 Pa. 169 , 180 A.2d 63 (1962); Bon Homme Richard Restaurants Inc., supra; Smith v. SEPTA, 297 Pa. Super. 267 , 443 A.2d 829 (1982); Commonwealth v. Bailey, 278 Pa. Super. 51 , 419 A.2d 1351, 1352 (1980); Corcoran v. Fiorentino, 277 Pa. Super. 256 , 419 A.2d 759 (1980); Public Welfare v. Flowers, 46 Pa. Commw. 326 , 407 A.2d 896 , 897 n.2 (1979); Thompson v. Cortese, 41 Pa. Commw. 174 , 398 A.2d 1079, 1082 (1979); cf. Brigham v. Elgin’s of Philadelphia Inc., 406 Pa. 99 , 176 A.2d 404 (1962) (Personal injury accident occurred May 1958; suit instituted by writ of

2025In re Estate of Byerley, 284 A.3d 1225, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations and quotation marks omitted) (citing to the tripartite test as established in In re Clark’s Estate, 334 A.2d 628, 632 (Pa. 1975). -7- J-S13002-25 Philip generally challenges the orphan’s court’s finding that no undue influence existed in the creation of the 2018 Will.

2025In re Estate of Byerley, 284 A.3d 1225, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations and quotation marks omitted) (citing to the tripartite test as established in In re Clark’s Estate, 334 A.2d 628, 632 (Pa. 1975). -7- J-S13002-25 Philip generally challenges the orphan’s court’s finding that no undue influence existed in the creation of the 2018 Will.

2026“Generally, counsel’s performance is presumed to be constitutionally adequate, and counsel will only be deemed ineffective upon a sufficient showing by the petitioner.” Id. ____________________________________________ 2 On January 7, 2026, this Court received a letter from the Commonwealth in which it stated that it would not be filing an appellate brief, but rather, would rely on the PCRA court’s opinion. -5- J-S06010-26 The tripartite test we apply is well-settled, and each prong of the test has been explained as follows: The burden is on the [petitioner] to prove all three of the following

2025“Generally, counsel’s performance is presumed to be constitutionally adequate, and counsel will only be deemed ineffective upon a sufficient showing by the petitioner.” Id. -4- J-A09011-25 The tripartite test we apply is well-settled, and each prong of the test has been explained as follows: The burden is on the [petitioner] to prove all three of the following prongs: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel has no reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) but for the errors and omissions of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the

2017Under prior practice, trial courts considered relocation requests based exclusively upon the tripartite test set forth in Gruber v. Gruber, 583 A.2d 434, 439 (Pa.Super. 1990).

2004Reefer v. Reefer, 791 A.2d 372, 376 (Pa.Super.2002) (quoting Gruber, 583 A.2d at 439 ). ¶ 17 The trial court, in applying the tripartite analysis required by Gruber , found it in the best interests of the children that primary physical custody be with Mother in Canada.

1994The trial court relied on the following tripartite test for opening a judgment non pros, found in the Supreme Court's decision in Narducci v. Mason's Discount Store, 518 Pa. 94, 98 , 541 A.2d 323, 325 (1988): 1) the petition to open must be promptly filed; 2) the default or delay must be reasonably explained or excused. 3) facts must be shown to exist which support a cause of action.

1994The trial court relied on the following tripartite test for opening a judgment non pros, found in the Supreme Court's decision in Narducci v. Mason's Discount Store, 518 Pa. 94, 98 , 541 A.2d 323, 325 (1988): 1) the petition to open must be promptly filed; 2) the default or delay must be reasonably explained or excused. 3) facts must be shown to exist which support a cause of action.