SUBCHAPTER C
REVIEW
Sec.
3521. Rehearing; relief granted.
§ 3521. Rehearing; relief granted.
If any party in interest shall, within five years after the final confirmation of
any account of a personal representative, file a petition to review any part of the
account or of an auditor's report, or of the adjudication, or of any decree of distribution,
setting forth specifically alleged errors therein, the court shall give such relief
as equity and justice shall require: Provided, That no such review shall impose liability
on the personal representative as to any property which was distributed by him in
accordance with a decree of court before the filing of the petition. The court or
master considering the petition may include in his adjudication or report, findings
of fact and of law as to the entire controversy, in pursuance of which a final order
may be made.
Cross References. Section 3521 is referred to in sections 5163, 5167, 5533, 7798, 7799.2 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc. (2003)
pa · cites it 6×
“'s entitlement to an inheritance as set forth in those documents within five years of the distribution of Rose's estate, see 20 Pa.C.S. § 3521, and that Lambert Farms had constructive notice, via those documents, of the claim of William Jr.”
In Re Estate of Alexander (2000)
pasuperct · cites it 5×
“The Hospitals argue that the petition for review of the 1988 adjudication is time-barred under 20 Pa. C.S. § 3521, absent fraud, that fraud has not been shown, and, if redistribution is affirmed, that the court’s order regarding interest also should be affirmed.”
In Re Jones (1995)
pasuperct · cites it 4×
“On July 15, 1991, about fourteen months after the account was confirmed, and about thirteen months after the original distributees were notified, FRI filed a Petition for Review and Rehearing pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S. § 3521, Probate, Estates and Fiduciary Code, on behalf of the…”
In Re Estate of Bell (1975)
pa · cites it 4×
“I cannot accept the unwarranted restrictive interpretation of Section 3521 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa.C.S. § 3521 (Special Pamphlet, 1974), employed by the majority.”
Estate of Edward Winslow Taylor Inter Vivos Trust (2017)
pasuperct · cites it 2×
“Furthermore, the issue of the trust termination date was specifically raised as a question for adjudication in the 2009 Fourth Account, and the orphans’ court found that the present challenge to the trust termination date was untimely pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S. § 3521 (setting five…”
In re Trust Under Agreement of Keiser (1990)
pasuperct · cites it 5×
“The only opportunity, however, to obtain review of an account which has been finally confirmed is through the prescribed procedure set forth in 20 Pa.C.S. § 3521 and made applicable to trusts by 20 Pa.”
In Re McCune (1997)
pasuperct · cites it 2×
“By Memorandum Opinion dated December 15,1994, the Court of Common Pleas held that the Committee lacked standing to seek review of the first account under 20 Pa.C.S. § 3521, Rehearing; relief granted.”
Estate of Kendall (2009)
pasuperct · cites it 2×
“Specifically, the court quoted the Bell decision that references 20 Pa.C.S. § 3521. 8 The Bell court stated: A long line of Pennsylvania cases has interpreted this statute and its predecessors as a legislative extension of the Orphans’ Court’s inherent discretionary power to…”
In re Trust of Bachman (1985)
pasuperct · cites it 2×
“*548 The instant petition was brought under 20 Pa.C.S. § 3521, providing the opportunity for a challenge to be made to the decree of distribution.”
In Re Estate of Chiara (1976)
pa
“” See also 20 Pa.C.S. § 3521. If, therefore, the court’s failure to consider the issue was because of the “defect of procedure” referred to, the court abused its discretion in the premises.”
Estate of Dulles (1981)
pa
“On December 29, 1977, while the matter was under further consideration, Gloria Dulles filed a petition pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S. § 3521, seeking review of the 1972 nisi adjudication entered on the accounting following Harrison Dulles’ death.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.