legal positions prevented the Estate from bringing any claims, the pres ent action falls well within any statute of limitations that might apply. Significantly, the Estate’s action in the Orphans’ court to recover the transferred assets was equitable in nature. See Fulton, supra (defining as action in equity, estate’s action to set aside conveyances made by decedent’s agent under POA, and to impose constructive trust). Thus, a statute of limitations does not control whether the Estate’s claims are time barred. See United Nat. Ins. Co., supra; Fulton, supra; Lipschutz, supra. Nevertheless, Appellants failed to raise the defense of laches in response to the Estate’s pleadings. Therefore, Appellants waived any defense or argument based on laches. See In re Estate of Scharlach, supra (<HOLDING>). Moreover, most of the time between the
holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief holding that appellant waived issue by failing to raise it in opening brief holding appellee waived laches for failure to raise it in any pleading before orphans court holding an argument waived on appeal for failure to raise the issue in objection to the magistrates recommendation holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief