The Orphans’ Court erred in concluding that it was no longer “practicable” to use property that was donated to the township as a park and for recreational purposes because a park can be land kept in its natural state, and so the proposed sale of a portion of unimproved land in a flood zone was not allowed by the Pennsylvania Donated or Dedicated Property Act, 53 P.S. § 3384. In re: Blythedale Park, 332 C.D. 2020 (Pa. Cmwlth. 6/5/2025) (opinion not reported).
Philadelphia has adopted new local Orphans’ Court rules on determining title to real estate under 20 Pa.C.S. § 3546, discovery, and the appointment of counsel for the alleged incapacitated person in guardianship proceedings. “Adoption of Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Orphans’ Court Rule 5.16B, 7.1A, and 14.4; President Judge General Court Regulation; No. 5 of 2025” (5/16/2025), 55 Pa.B. 3728 (5/31/2025).
Based upon a copy of a will alleged to have been signed before the will that was probated, the petitioners attempted to claim the proceeds of sale of real property in Turkey that was sold by the guardian of the decedent’s estate with the approval of the Turkish courts after the decedent was declared to be incapacitated in Pennsylvania. The Orphans’ Court held that (a) Pennsylvania does not allow a cause of action for interference with a right of inheritance when the alleged interference took place during the decedent’s lifetime (and a constructive trust is a remedy and not a cause of action); (b) the claims were time barred because they were made more than one year after the probate of the later will and more than 30 days after court approval of the sale of the property, to which the petitioners were not entitled to notice because they did not reside in Pennsylvania; (c) the probated will left “everything” to the named beneficiary and there is no ambiguity to be reconciled with the earlier will; and (d) there was no basis upon which to question the approval of the sale by the Turkish courts. Camlibel Estate (No. 2), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 29 (Allegheny O.C. 2025).
It was a breach of trust for the trustee of a testamentary trust to transfer a residence to the beneficiary of a testamentary trust when the beneficiary was only entitled to use the property during her lifetime. Because the beneficiary failed to inquire whether the trustee was acting within her authority, she received the property subject to a constructive trust, and following her sale of the property became liable to the remainder beneficiaries for her unjust enrichment. Holmes Estate, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 24 (Philadelphia O.C. 2025).
After previously finding that it had no jurisdiction over the administration of the estate of a decedent who had established his domicile in Florida before his death, the Orphans’ Court also found it had no jurisdiction over challenges to actions by the decedent’s agent under a durable power of attorney and that it had no jurisdiction over the disposition of New Jersey property owned by the decedent and his wife as tenants by the entireties. Milligan Trust, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 19 (Chester O.C. 2025).
For the prior decisions in this same estate, see “Decedent Had Changed Domicile to Florida.”
A mother’s intention to provide additional life insurance benefits for her three daughters and not her son, who was to inherit a valuable business, failed when the additional insurance was purchased through an existing trust for the benefit of the four children and then later transferred to a new trust for the benefit of the three daughters because the trustees of the existing trust violated their fiduciary duties to the four beneficiaries of that trust when they transferred the new life insurance policies to a new trust. A constructive trust for the benefit of the son was therefore imposed on one fourth of the life insurance payable to the new trust that would have been distributed to the son if the policy had been kept in the existing trust. In re: Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust of Ruth M. Grant, 805 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 5/23/2025) (non-precedential).
Following the holding of the Superior Court confirming that the fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege did not allow a trustee to withhold documents in discovery, the Orphans’ Court held that new claims of attorney-client privilege based on exceptions to the fiduciary exception were barred by the doctrines of waiver and law of the case. Scaife Trust, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 14 (Allegheny O.C. 2024).
The Orphans’ Court did not have the power to approve by-laws or a board of directors for a nonprofit corporation operating as a church following the death of the founder and sole incorporator of the church when there were no by-laws and no previously elected board of directors. The court could also not recognize purported meetings and actions by members of the church because there were disputes over membership. The court therefore appointed a custodian to prevent the dissipation of assets, determine the membership of the church, and conduct a plebiscite of the membership to elect a board of directors and adopt by-laws. In re: St. Michael’s Cathedral Orthodox Christian Church, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 1 (Philadelphia O.C. 2024).
Under the “relation back” doctrine, a lawsuit filed on behalf of an estate by the person appointed as the executor by the decedent’s unprobated will is timely if filed before the statute of limitations has expired even though the petition for probate is not filed, and letters testamentary are not granted, until after the statute of limitations has expired. Edwards v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, ___ A.4th ___, 2025 PA Super 103 (5/13/2025).
The Orphans’ Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over a petition challenging the validity of an amendment to a trust after the trustee has filed a final account, the account has been approved by the court, the time for appeal has lapsed, and final distribution has been made, because the trust has ceased to exist. In the Matter of: Charles J. Mode, Deceased, 1796 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 5/9/2025) (non-precedential).