Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Probate Processes
Probating is a legal process that occurs when a person, commonly referred to as the decedent, dies. Probating concerns the distribution of a decedent’s property – it may be either distributed according to a decedent’s valid will or according to probating laws if no valid will was left (Romano, 2017). In the latter case, the court will appoint the decedent’s representative. Consequently, they must assemble the property, pay the associated costs, and distribute any assets that are left over (Romano, 2017). The process itself is not always required; it depends on the property’s extent and ownership and can be avoided in some cases. For example, property held in joint tenancy or trust does not require the probate process.
Chosen Classification
To compare the courts and their procedures in different states, they must be appropriately classified. The probate courts in the U.S. can vary in different states; furthermore, there can be two or more tribunals in the same state to properly supervise the estate’s complete administration (Wiley, 2019). Different organization, in turn, influences the probate process, which makes it the perfect comparison feature. Consequently, the probate courts can be generalized into four categories: separate courts with inferior status, courts unified with general jurisdiction ones, separate courts in coordination with general jurisdiction, and probate-handling chanceries.
Delaware
The system of separated courts with inferior powers has many benefits. First, it addresses probate proceedings’ natural specialization (Romano, 2017). In addition, it allows for a more personal, informal, and less technical procedure – something that can be appreciated considering the grief of loss. However, informality comes at the cost of relaxation for the judges’ qualifications (Romano, 2017). Consequently, if the decision of an orphans’ court is appealed, it can only be done in the court of the general jurisdiction. Making courts of general jurisdiction an intermediate in these cases allows for more confidence in the probate courts.
Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, probate courts are also separated into the surrogate and orphan courts. However, the need to create additional orphans courts depends on the population requirement. If a county’s population is more than 150,000, the legislature must establish an orphans’ court (Wiley, 2019). The court’s inferiority is indicated by having the “court of record” status. In other words, every court of record has superior and general jurisdiction concerning all cases where they have jurisdiction (Wiley, 2019). It equalizes the probate courts with GJ ones and allows for a more flexible, appealing system and the overall probate process.
New Jersey
The probate court system in New Jersey is represented by the coordination of courts with probate and general jurisdiction. The prerogative court has the power to probate wills, grant letters, and conduct all the proceedings; that is usually the case when the proceeding is initiated in the prerogative court in the first instance (Romano, 2017). Surrogate courts can also undertake the same actions, but only when there is no adversary in the issue. Orphan’s court has no original probate powers except for the adversary cases transferred from the surrogate’s courts (Romano, 2017). The overall probating process, thus, consists of regular steps with the essential addition of the executioner’s appointment.
Similarities and Differences
In summary, all three states display the separation of probate courts, which have different levels of power in the local hierarchy. In addition, the tradition of creating orphans’ courts is old and simultaneous (1683) (Wiley, 2019). It allows for a flexible approach in probate case resolution through the precise division of activities and responsibilities. It also simplifies the probate process for the applicants since they have a choice of whether they want to apply to the superior court or the local one. Lastly, probate courts of all states are connected with the courts of GJ – even though, in the case of Delaware, the tie is not that significant.
The main difference mentioned in states’ probate systems is the level of power of probate courts. New Jersey showcases strict court stratification in the three-court division (orphans, surrogates, and prerogatives). The interconnection of probate and GJ is achieved at the top of the power chain in the hands of prerogative courts. The orphans’ courts do not possess the original ability to solve probate issues – they can solely do so only if the case was previously transferred. On the contrary, the orphans’ courts of Delaware have a superior position over surrogate courts, with the ability to solve more complicated issues. GJ courts can only interfere in the probate affairs of the orphans’ court decision was appealed. Finally, only Pennsylvania has equity regarding the power level of probate and GJ courts.
Administrative Processes
In legal practice, administrative processes are commonly referred to as adjudications. Adjudications resemble any final resolution, such as an order, decree, or decision made by an agency that affects the personal or property rights of the party or parties to the proceeding (Pennsylvania Administrative Code). In this context, an agency is a governmental representative, either an authority or department, with the legal power to make regulations or decide cases (Delaware Administrative Code). For adjudications to be considered legal and lawful, they must adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (New et al. Code). Because every state’s system is unique in one way or another, states have their own APAs for regulation.
Chosen Comparison Level
In comparing the APAs of individual states, three aspects were chosen to showcase the administrative process from the perspective of lawfulness. First, there is a need to understand the regulations that apply to the decision-makers. The agencies must be transparent in their actions and limits so that the overall process can be accessible and understandable to its participants and the public. Then, the procedures themselves have to be compared in terms of the rules and regulations that organize them. Despite the common ultimate goal of the pursuit of justice, the particular implications may vary in different states as well as specific practices. Finally, judicial review deserves attention as a court’s tool to interpret the law and overturn actions inconsistent with it.
Delaware
Delaware’s APA scrupulously covers the agencies’ transparency requirements in an attempt to eradicate ambiguity. The agency must provide general background information about itself, the nature of its practice, and various personal data of its employees, such as addresses and phone numbers (Delaware Administrative Code). During the adjudication process, Delaware Administrative Code highlights the importance of timely providing the information regarding the case to the participants and the public. In addition, it states that nothing that happened in the court during the session should be omitted in the final decision’s consideration (Delaware Administrative Code). In the end, Delaware’s APA allows for the judicial review of both adjudication regulations and case decisions.
Pennsylvania
The section about regulations concerning agencies, in contrast to Delaware’s APA, does not include much information about transparency and openness. However, it is stated that agencies have the power to promulgate, amend, and repeal regulations reasonably in the context of APA (Pennsylvania Administrative Code). Pennsylvanian APA underlines specific rules for the commonwealth and local agencies regarding the adjudication process. The former refers to any independent or executive agency; the latter concerns government agencies other than the commonwealth (Pennsylvania Administrative Code). The process specification is further increased by referring to extraordinary cases, such as those involving deaf people. Finally, the judicial review of regulations or case decisions is allowed and specified for the actions of local and commonwealth agencies.
New Jersey
New Jersey’s APA emphasizes the need for the agency to be clear about its intentions and background information. This section is similar to the next section responsible for adjudication’s regulation in its emphasis on adherence to promulgated rules and policies (New et al. Code). It defines APA as a regulatory guidance document and obliges state agencies not to act inappropriately. Lastly, the section on judicial review, in addition to the possibility of case decision review, mentions the administrative review that can be conducted inside the agency (New et al. Code). It is stated it need not comply with the rules applied in contested cases.
Similarities
Among the similarities between the states’ APAs, there is a crucial aspect of not only declaring but also maintaining the declaration according to actions. To support it, agencies must be transparent and open in their activity to ensure no uncertainty and ambiguity. APAs also have common ground in the specificity of various possible situations, complications, and outcomes. For example, Pennsylvania, which has the most diverse court system out of three, mentions different agency types in APA and provides a separate set of rules for them. The specificity is further emphasized by the ability of adjudication parties to appeal to results and regulations they find unlawful or inappropriate.
Differences
The differences in the APAs of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey are not significant but present nonetheless. Despite transparency being one of the essential factors of administrative processes, the Pennsylvanian APA highlights that agencies shall promulgate, amend, and appeal reasonable regulations according to APA (Pennsylvania Administrative Code). The other unique feature is the example of an administrative review mentioned only in New Jersey’s APA. In some cases, the administrative review might change the final decision; however, the judicial review can only be applied to the latter. Ultimately, every state showcases a different approach to adjudication regulation. Delaware highlights the amount of accessible information; Pennsylvania sets additional rules for different types of agencies; New Jersey emphasizes the APA itself as a regulatory guidance document.
Summary
In conclusion, the three neighboring states of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey proved to have more similarities than differences. Regarding the probate processes, the orphans’ courts were developed almost simultaneously, and the practice was consequently maintained. All states showcase the separation of courts to address the variability of possible causes. The interconnection of probate and Gj courts, even though only occasional in Delaware, follows the same logic. As for the administrative processes, each state has a unique set of regulations, APAs, to ensure the processes’ lawfulness; the local states’ features can be seen in some of them. Despite the minor differences, APAs pursue the single purpose of uncovering the truth, and the ability to request judicial review only supports that.
References
Delaware’s Administrative Code. (n.d.). Delaware General Assembly. Web.
New Jersey Administrative Code. (n.d.). Legal Information Institute. Web.
Pennsylvania Administrative Code. (n.d.). Pennsylvania Code & Bulletin. Web.
Romano, J. A. (2017). No dead giveaways: Finding a viable model of ante-mortem probate for New Jersey. Seton Hall L. Rev., 48, 1683-1704.
Wiley, N. G. (2019). A brief history of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court.Pa. Bar Association Quarterly, 134. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.