Double Spacing Dispute

Pa.R.O.C.P. 4.1(c) (and similar rules in most other courts) states that the text of all petitions and other “legal paper” filed with the Orphans’ Court must be “double spaced.” Based on a recent motion filed in a federal court and that court’s ruling on that motion, it appears that “double spaced” can have at least two meanings. However, it is likely that, unless you are a tech geek or a typesetting fanatic, you should not care or need to care.

Fonts and Line Spacings

Pa.R.O.C.P. 4.1(d) requires the use of lettering that is no smaller than 12 points, a “point” being 1/72nd of a inch. A 12 point font is therefore one sixth of an inch, and one would expect that single-spaced 12 point text would be six lines to an inch.

And that might be the result using a standard manual typewriter with 12 point Courier type and one carriage return per line.

For reasons that aren’t altogether clear, but might have to do with aesthetics or readability, Microsoft Word and most other word processing programs will “single space” a 12 point font at about 14 points per line, so “double spaced” text in Word is actually about 28 points per line and not 24 points. However, it is possible to set line spacing at 12 points per line or 24 points per line if you want.

And some lawyers thought that was worth litigating.

The Litigation

Jessica Jones et al. v. Varsity Brands LLC, et al., is a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, and the lawyers for the plaintiffs decided to set the line spacings in their filings to exactly 24 points rather than the 28 points which Word would use by default. The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs were doing that to get more words on each page (27 lines of text instead of 23) and filed a motion to require the plaintiffs to comply with a local rule that required that filings be “double-spaced.” (According to a footnote in the court’s order, the defendants initially raised in the issue in order to try to get an extension of time to file a reply in connection with a motion for summary judgment.)

After explaining the two different possible meanings of “double-spaced,” and citing two different conclusions in two opinions from other courts, the court in Jessica Jones refused to take a position on the meaning of “double-spaced” but also found that a 24 point spacing did not violate the local rule, concluding with the following observations:

“The Court further notes that the last thing any party needs is more words on a page. The length of an argument is no guarantee of its success, and indeed could result in more confusion, not clarity. Moving forward, the Parties are encouraged to spend their valuable time focusing on the merits of this case, and certainly not figuring out how many sometimes-useless words will fit on a page.”

Jessica Jones et al. v. Varsity Brands LLC, et al., No. 2:20-cv-02892-SHL, Doc. 526, p. 3 (U.S.D.C. W.D. Tenn. 11/1/2023) (footnote omitted).

The Author’s Practice

I must confess that for many years I have been filing petitions and other documents in the Orphans’ Court with line spacings that were not what Word calls “double” or were even 24 points, but were what Word calls “1.5 lines,” which is halfway between single and double spacing.

I did this because I believe that the rule requiring “double spaced” was to improve readability and not limit the lines or words on the page. To my eye, double-spacing in Word appeared to be too spaced out and too far between the lines of text, while the 1.5 lines setting was more attractive and more readable.

If you look at most published works of fiction (and not court reporters or textbooks), you will see similar line spacings, which are more than single spaced but less than double spaced. This is because fiction is read for pleasure and publishers want to make the books easier to read.

Based on what I now know, I understand that 1.5 lines of 12 point type is about 21 points, which is significantly more than the 12 points resulting from “single spaced” and only slightly less than the 24 points resulting from “double spaced.”

So I believe I have complied with the spirit and intent of Pa.R.O.C.P. 4.1(c) even if I have not complied with a literal interpretation of the rule.

And no judge or party has complained about, or perhaps even noticed, the line spacings in my filings (at least so far).

Conclusion

The requirement of double-spacing in court filings is probably for readability rather than as a limit on pages, lines of text, or words. For that reason, it should be possible to use either 24 point spacing or the “double” line spacing in a word processing program without violating court rules (and most likely without anyone noticing).

Trust Modified to Support Settlor’s Elderly Son

The Orphans’ Court approved the modification of a testamentary trust for the benefit of the settlor’s son in order to allow distributions of principal for the medical expenses and support of the settlor’s son, the court finding that the settlor could not have anticipated that his son would live to age 99, or the advances in medical care and the resulting costs of that care that would occur in the 55 years after the settlor’s death, or that the trust created by the settlor’s wife would be exhausted by distributions for the support of their son. O’Neill Trust fbo Hugh O’Neill, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 330 (Montgomery O.C. 2023), on appeal, 1787 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super.)

Rejection of Life-Sustaining Treatment Approved

The Orphans’ Court approved the termination of life sustaining treatment for the alleged incapacitated person (AIP) at the request of the daughter of the AIP and over the objections of the son of the AIP based on testimony of several doctors, including a doctor consulted by counsel appointed for the AIP, that the AIP had suffered severe brain damage, was in a permanent comatose state, and would continue to decline physically due to lack of activity. The court found that the AIP’s Catholic faith was not determinative, that the son’s testimony that his mother would want medical treatment if she were “knocked out” was not a credible indication of her wishes, and that the substituted judgment standard required the conclusion that the AIP would choose to reject life-sustaining determine under these circumstances. In re: Estate of F.K., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 316 (Bucks O.C. 2023), aff’d 1415 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 8/22/2023) (non-precedential), pet. for app. den., 452 MAL 2023 (Pa. 10/4/2023).

Decree in Ejectment Not Appealable

Decree allowing eviction of a beneficiary in possession of the residence which is the major asset of the estate, and the sale of which is necessary for the administration of the estate, is not an appealable order because it is not a final order settling the estate and it is not one of the orders appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342. Capobianco Estate, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 311 (Philadelphia O.C. 2019), app. dism’d, 2537 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. 11/13/2019).

[DBE Note: Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(6) allows an appeal from an order “determining an interest in real or personal property,” and an appeal might be allowed because the Orphans’ Court had determined that the appellant had no interest in the property allowing him to remain in possession. However, the appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to file the docketing statement required by Pa.R.A.P. 3517.]

Interest on Note Was Simple and Not Compounded

The decedent’s note was silent on how interest was to be calculated, and the court would not consider extrinsic evidence in the form of amortization schedules, so the interest on the unpaid principal was to be calculated as simple interest and not compound interest, resulting in a debt of $63,174.30 and not $1,318,488.22. Dembosky Estate, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 267 (Lackawanna O.C. 2022), aff’d, 571 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 6/15/2023) (non-precedential).

Document Was Not a Codicil

The document offered as a codicil to the decedent’s will was allegedly signed by the decedent in the hospital two days before her death and was denied probate by the Register of Wills. Based on the contents of the document and the notes of testimony before the Register (the submission of which the parties agreed), the court affirmed the decision of the Register because the document made no reference to the will it was supposed to modify and was totally inconsistent with the scheme of the will. The court also noted that the document did not expressly provide for dispositions of property upon the death of the decedent. An affidavit of the proponent of the codicil offering notes of the decedent and explanations for the codicil were excluded under the Dead Man’s Rule. Hogan Estate, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 271 (Montgomery O.C. 2023), on appeal (Pa. Super.).

Daughter Waited Too Long to Challenge Gifts

The petition filed by a daughter challenging the gifts made to the other daughter four years before the mother was adjudicated incapacitated was denied because: (a) The lawyer who had represented and advised the incapacitated person (IP) in 2011 and 2012 testified credibly that she showed no lack of memory or lack of mental capacity, and that she was not unduly influenced by anyone, when she signed a new will disinheriting the one daughter, and then later giving four properties to her other daughter because of concerns that the disinherited daughter would challenge the will. (b) The disinherited daughter had no standing to challenge the transfer of the four properties by her mother during her mother’s lifetime. (c) Although the IP had signed a power of attorney in favor of the daughter to whom she made the gifts, the document remained in the possession of the lawyer and there was no other evidence of a confidential relationship between the IP and that daughter. (d) The disinherited daughter had filed two petitions challenging the gifts before her mother was adjudicated incapacitated in 2016, but withdrew the petitions and then petitioned again to void the gifts four years later, but laches applied because the daughter receiving the gifts had changed her financial position in reliance on the gifts. (e) Medical records are admissible for the facts in the records but not the medical opinions in them, and the court would not take judicial notice of drug information found on the Internet as evidence of the purpose for which the IP was prescribed a drug. In re: L.G., an Incapacitated Person, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 280 (Chester O.C. 2022), aff’d 331 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 7/14/2022) (no opinion).

Medical Records Supported Involuntary Commitment

The decision of a Mental Health Hearing Officer for an involuntary commitment for treatment for 20 days was affirmed based on information in medical records that was read into evidence and which fell within the regular records exception to the hearsay rule. That information showed a clear and present danger that the patient intended to commit suicide. In re: P.T., 1 Fid.Rep.4th 304 (Allegheny O.C. 2023), on appeal, 191 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super.).