Schuylkill County has adopted a new Sch.R.C.P. 2064 for the compromise, settlement, discontinuance, or distribution in an action involving an incapacitated person. “Administrative Order; No. S-1580-25” (7/9/2025), 55 Pa.B. 4971 (7/26/2025).
An appeal of the appointment of a plenary guardian for an alleged incapacitated person (AIP) is generally moot following the death of the AIP, and the exception for appeals raising issues of public importance or that would otherwise evade review does not apply because issues raised in appeals challenging the appointment of guardians can usually be resolved in those appeals, there are other remedies for any improper actions by the appointed guardian (such actions as by or against the AIP’s estate), and there was no claim that the issues raised were of public importance. In re: S.C., 3024 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 7/21/2025) (non-precedential).
I’ve seen and heard many questions from lawyers over the years who are representing personal representatives (i.e., executors or administrators) of an estate and who are not certain about what to do do when there has been no notice of…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
An interim order, entered with the consent of the husband and wife during a divorce proceeding, that awarded real property owned by the husband and wife as tenants by the entireties to the husband, was an enforceable marital settlement agreement that made the property an asset of the husband’s estate even though no deed was ever delivered and no divorce decree was entered due to the death of the husband during the divorce proceedings. In re: Estate of Gary John Carlisle, 971 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 7/15/2025) (non-precedential).
It was not an abuse of discretion or error of law for the Orphans’ Court to continue the appointment of a plenary guardian for the incapacitated person when there was uncontradicted testimony at the review hearing that the incapacitated person was in need of “24/7 care and support” and had no family or friends able to provide that care. In re: M.W., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, 1721 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 7/18/2025) (non-precedential).
H.R. 1, previously known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” was passed by both houses of Congress and was signed into law on July 4, becoming P.L. 119-21. Section 70106 of the act changes the provision that had doubled the federal estate tax exclusion amount for the years 2018 through 2025, so that there is now a permanent exclusion of $15 million in 2026 (an increase of about $1 million over the exclusion in effect in 2025), and that $15 million exclusion will be adjusted for inflation after 2025.
The estate tax exclusion amount was doubled in 2018, from $5 million to $10 million (with adjustments for inflation after 2011) under section 11061 of the reconciliation act of 2017, P. L. 115-97, but that change was temporary and would not have applied to deaths or gifts after 2025.
The temporary doubling of the exclusion amount created a tax planning problem for people who are merely wealthy, but not ultra-wealthy, because the additional exclusion amount would be lost if not used before the end of 2025. For someone with an estate of (for example) $100 million, this was not a problem because he or she could make gifts to children, grandchildren, or other family members totaling $13,990,000 in 2025 (the inflation-adjusted exclusion amount for that year) and still have more than $86 million to live on. But for someone with an estate of “only” $14 million, there was a problem. A gift of the entire exclusion amount would leave the donor relatively penniless, while gifts of less than $14 million would result in estate or gift tax of 40% on the estate in excess of the reduced exclusion amount after 2025.
The new law eliminates that dilemma. The new $15 million estate tax exclusion means that the exclusion will go up somewhat in 2026, and will not go down, so there will be no loss of the exclusion regardless of whether any gifts are made in 2025. (The new $15 million exclusion for 2026 represents an increase because an exclusion in 2026 based on an inflation-adjusted $10 million would probably have been about $14,360,000 and not $15,000,000.)
The chart of “Federal Estate and Gift Tax Rates and Exclusions” has been updated for the year 2026 to reflect this new exclusion amount.
A note about the name of the new act: H.R. 1 included a section stating that the act should be known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” but that section was deleted from the Senate version of the bill, probably because the Senate parlimentarian found that the provision violated the rules for reconciliation. (A similar change was made to the Senate version of P.L. 115-97, which was supposed to be the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” of 2017, but was enacted without that name.) P.L. 119-21 is therefore an act “To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14.”
Other changes made by P.L. 119-21 include the extension of many of the provisions of P.L. 115-97 that became effective in 2018, including the following that are relevant to estate and trust planning and administration:
- The income tax rate reductions made by P.L. 115-97 have been extended indefinitely.
- The increases to alternative minimum income tax exemption amounts and phase-out thresholds made by P.L. 115-97 have been extended indefinitely.
- Miscellaneous itemized deductions (other than estate and trust administration expenses described in § 67(e)) will remain entirely nondeductible.
- The provisions for ABLE account contributions and rollovers that would have expired after 2025 have been extended indefinitely.
P.L. 119-21 also includes new provisions for “Trump accounts,” which are a new kind of individual retirement account for children under 18 years of age. Those new “Trump accounts” will be addressed in a later posting.
It was not error for the Orphans’ Court to enter an order enforcing the recommendations of a mediator when the parties had agreed to “binding mediation” and the agreed-upon mediator had consulted with both parties, even though the mediator never held a joint meeting with the parties. Uddin v. Board of Trustees for Masjid Al-Madinah, 920 CD 2024 (Pa. Cmwlth. 7/11/2025) (opinion not reported).
The confirmation of an agent’s account by the Orphans’ Court was an error of law, was an abuse of discretion, and was unsupported by the record when the agent for the deceased principal filed an account that showed the same rounded expenses each month, the agent failed to comply with discovery orders to provide financial records, and the agent failed to appear at the hearing on the objections to the account. Although the evidence showed that the agent had failed to account for funds that were transferred out of the principal’s accounts both during the principal’s lifetime and following her death, the surcharge imposed by the court was limited to the unpaid debt owed to one known creditor. The adjudication was therefore reversed and remanded for consideration of the proper surcharge amount. In re: Dorothy S. Beam, Principal, ___ A.4th ___, 2025 PA Super 136 (7/1/2025), rev’g 2 Fid.Rep.4th 385 (Philadelphia O.C. 2024).
The testator’s direction that his estate “be equally divided among” his siblings did not evidence an intent to override the anti-lapse statute, 20 Pa.C.S. § 2514(9). However, the Orphans’ Court erred in holding that the distributions to the issues of the deceased siblings was to be “per capita,” because the anti-lapse statute provides that the share of each deceased sibling should be distributed to his or her issue per stirpes. In re: Estate of Timothy P. Lucas, 1137 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 7/1/2025) (non-precedential).
When the executors who were originally granted letters have resigned and an administrator has been appointed to complete the administration of the estate, and the administrator files an account that covers only his own administration and not the administration of the executors, it is not improper for a beneficiary to file a petition seeking a surcharge against one of the original executors for misconduct even after the time for filing objections to the administrator’s account has passed, and it was error for the Orphans’ Court to have dismissed the petition. In re: Estate of June Millan, 2352 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 6/27/2025), (non-precedential).