The Orphans’ Court has nonmandatory jurisdiction over an ejectment action when there are “entangled” counterclaims that are within the mandatory jurisdiction of the Orphans’ Court, but the proper remedy is not the dismissal of the ejectment action brought in the Civil Division but the transfer of the action to the Orphans’ Court. Estate of Ricky E. Hull v. Melissa S. Showman, 1277 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 7/6/2023) (non-precedential).

[DBE Note: A possible problem with this decision is the suggestion that the Orphans’ Court had jurisdiction over the ejectment action only because the defendant asserted counterclaims that were within the mandatory jurisdiction of the Orphans’ Court, so the court had nonmandatory jurisdiction under 20 Pa.C.S. § 712(3) because there were “substantial questions” that were within the mandatory jurisdiction of the court and also matters not within that jurisdiction. However, under 20 Pa.C.S. § 711(a), the mandatory jurisdiction of the court includes “the administration and distribution of the real and personal property of decedents’ estates” and obtaining possession of a decedent’s real property would seem to be necessary in most–if not all–cases if the real property is to be sold.]