An order of an Orphans’ Court denying an injunction against a personal representative prohibiting a sale of real or personal property of the decedent is interlocutory and not a collateral order and so not subject to appeal. Estate of Virginia A. Cherry, 111 A.3d 1204, 2015 PA Super 52, No. 633 MDA 2014 (3/17/2015).
Not sure why this was necessary, but the Pa. Department of Revenue has issued a bulletin confirming that same-sex marriages will be recognized for inheritance tax and realty transfer tax purposes following the decision in Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F. Supp. 2d 410 (M.D. Pa. 2014).
The bulletin also states that “Financial institutions shall treat joint accounts titled in the names of individuals in a same-sex marriage as accounts held by ‘husband’ and ‘wife.'” Not sure that the Dept. of Revenue has that kind of authority over financial institutions, but it’s still nice to know what they think.
Inheritance Tax Bulletin 2015-01; Realty Transfer Tax Bulletin 2015-01.
The court erred in division of wrongful death action damages and survival action damages, because Department of Public Welfare’s (DPW) medicare claim was against the estate instead of a personal injury lien (which would be against the wrongful death action). The Orphans’ Court corrected the error, denied additional legal fees for the estate’s representative contesting DPW’s objections and ordered the remaining balance of the estate distributed to DPW (which is now the Department of Human Services). Harrington Estate, 5 Fid.Rep.3d 65 (O.C. Mont.) (opinion by Ott, J.), app. dismissed, No. 1319 EDA 2015 (1/28/2016) (non-precedential).
Petitioner (in will contest) claimed fraud and undue influence against decedent’s attorney, who contacted the County Office of Services for the Aging (COSA), after petitioner had solicited the attorney’s help to draft a new will for the decedent but would not allow him to meet with decedent alone, and the attorney was notified that petitioner hired another attorney to draft decedent a new will. COSA intervened and had decedent’s attorney draft a new will restoring decedent’s estate plan pre-petitioner. Court granted summary judgment against petitioner’s claim of fraud, direct undue influence, or a shift of presumption of undue influence, because there was no genuine issue of material fact. Flatow Estate, 5 Fid. Rep. 3d 69 (O.C. Del. 2015) (opinion by Kenney, P.J.)
One co-executor surcharged for legal fees paid to defend criminal harassment charge by beneficiary; another executor surcharged for payment of invoices for work supposedly done by the executor during decedent’s lifetime when there was a lack of credible evidence that the invoices were submitted to decedent during her lifetime; oral contract by decedent to sell property to a beneficiary denied, the court finding that the beneficiary was acting as the decedent’s property manager, but claims for rents paid to the beneficiary were denied as outside the four year statute of limitations; executors’ commissions in excess of Johnson Estate schedule upheld due to the number and condition of the real properties owned by the decedent and the difficulties of dealing with the contentious relationships among the siblings-beneficiaries; and lifetime gifts of jewelry by the decedent denied due to lack of donative intent. McCusker Estate, 5 Fid. Rep. 3d 82 (O.C. Delaware Co. 2015) (Opinion by Kenney, P.J.)
The Orphans’ Court refused to enter a judgment on an arbitration award when the petitioner failed to identify the arbitrator, the date and place of the arbitration hearing, and the details of the notice or service used to establish jurisdiction over the respondent, and the petitioner failed to address the issue of whether the Orphans’ Court had jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award and enter a judgment on the award. Roosevelt-Bentman Trust for American Voters, No. 608IV of 2014 (O.C. Phila. 2/2/2015) (Memorandum of Carrafiello, J.).
Orphans’ Court had no in personam (personal) jurisdiction over administrator of Virginia estate who resided in New Jersey, and the court could not order the distribution of assets of the Virginia estate to the personal representative of a Pennsylvania beneficiary. Estate of Elwood Rucker, No. 1229DE of 2013 (O.C. Phila. 1/12/2015) (Opinion of Herron, J.).
Orphans’ Court has subject matter jurisdiction over claim by the personal representative of of the estate of a nonresident decedent to real estate in Pennsylvania, and dismissal of petition could not be sustained as a demurrer when petitioner had no opportunity to amend the petition. Estate of Patricia Amelie Logan Gentry v. Diamond Rock Hill Realty, LLC, 2015 PA Super 40, No. 2020 EDA 2014 (2/20/2015).
Previously overlooked: The report of the Supreme Court’s Elder Law Task Force was released in November 2014. The press release announcing the report, titled “Elder Law Task Force delivers report with recommendations to aid Supreme Court in protecting
elders from abuse and neglect,” was dated 11/14/2014.
The property that is owned by a decedent at death is administered by the executor or administrator of the decedent’s estate and is always subject to the claims of the decedent’s creditors. The Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code (“PEF Code”),…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here