No. 250 January Term, 1978, Appeal from the Decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Orphans' Court Division, dated May 19, 1978, at No. 78741.
Catherine R. Barone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Jerome C. Groskin, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Eagen, C. J., and O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty and Kauffman, JJ.
This is a Commonwealth appeal from a "Memorandum Opinion Sur Exceptions to Adjudication" of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Orphans' Court Division, dated May 19, 1978. In the memorandum opinion, the orphans' court dismissed Commonwealth exceptions to that portion of the court's supplemental adjudication of February 1, 1978 approving appellee estate's state inheritance tax deductions of some $50,000. The orphans' court dismissed the exceptions on the ground that the Commonwealth, contrary to local orphans' court rules, failed to submit written objections to appellee's claimed tax deductions.
The Commonwealth maintains that the orphans' court erred in requiring written objections. According to the Commonwealth, appellee's request for the challenged deductions was contained in a "Petition for Adjudication." Under the Commonwealth's reading of Montgomery County Orphans' Court Rules, particularly Rule 6.10D(d), objection to such a petition need not be made in writing, but may be made orally at the time of audit. Montgomery County Orphans' Court Local Rule 6.10D(d) provides:
" Objections. Objections to the petition for adjudication may be made orally at the time for audit."
The Commonwealth contends here, as it contended in its exceptions to the supplemental adjudication, that timely oral objection as called for by Rule 6.10D(d) was made.
Review of this record makes clear the Commonwealth is correct that appellee sought approval of the claimed inheritance tax deductions by way of a petition for adjudication. So too, it is clear that the Commonwealth has correctly interpreted local rule. Ordinarily "[t]he interpretation of rules of court is for the court which enunciates them. . . ." Dellacasse v. Floyd, 332 Pa. 218, 224, 2 A.2d 860, 863 (1938). Accord e. g., Milton Bank & Safe Deposit Co. v. Beachel, 174 Pa. Super. 276, 101 A.2d 142 (1953). See also Clark Estate, 488 Pa. 1, 410 A.2d 796 (1980). This policy of deference,
however, has no place where, as here, the plain wording of a local orphans' court rule is ...