In Commonwealth v. Caviness, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a predictable ruling in the face of a rather novel petition seeking the return of property. The defendant was charged with various crimes. And as part of the investigation, law enforcement seized laptops, tablets and other devices that families tend to have around the house. The return of property petition was styled as a petition filed — at least in part — on behalf of the defendant’s wife. The devices contained irreplaceable family photos. Based on the common law doctrine of tenancy by the entireties, the Court deftly avoided the creative claim, instead ruling that Rule 588 required the petition to be filed while the trial court had jurisdiction. But the defendant had filed his petition too late.