New Carbon Co. Rules on Reports of Auditors or Masters

Carbon County has adopted two new local Orphans’ Court rules on the filing and confirmation of reports of auditors or masters:

New Local Rule 9.6 governs notice of the filing of a report of an auditor or master. “Adoption of Orphans’ Court Local Rule 9.6 Notice of Filing Report. Form of Notice. Objections; No. 25-RW-0157,” Administrative Order 12-2025 (4/25/2025), 55 Pa.B. 3221 (5/10/2025).

New Local Rule 9.7 provides for the confirmation of a report of an auditor or master. “Adoption of Orphans’ Court Local Rule 9.7 Confirmation of Report; No. 25-RW-0159,” Administrative Order 13-2025 (4/25/2025), 55 Pa.B. 3222 (5/10/2025).

These rules were to be effective May 1, 2025.

Counsel Fees Awarded for Vexatious Litigation Over Jewelry

It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to award counsel fees to the decedent’s daughter-in-law when her stepchildren removed jewelry from her home and a safe deposit box without her permission or the permission of her husband (the decedent’s son) and while she was hospitalized. Although the administrators of the estate did not remove the jewelry themselves, they were involved in the removal of the jewelry and their conduct could properly be found to be obdurate and vexatious. It was also not an abuse of discretion to fail to hold an evidentiary hearing on the fee petition when the issues surrounding the removal of the jewelry had already been fully litigated. The Orphans’ Court had personal jurisdiction over the administrators even though no citation had been served upon them because they had previously filed a petition on another issue and so had consented to the jurisdiction of the court. Finally, the fee petition was timely even though it was filed before the entry of the final order for the distribution of the estate. The appeal of the appellants was therefore denied, but the Superior Court denied additional counsel fees for the appeal, finding that the issues raised on appeal did not lack a basis in law or fact and the appeal was not dilatory, obdurate, or vexatious. In re: Estate of James G. Klingensmith, 550 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 4/29/2025) (non-precedential).

Will Following Bargain Sale Was Not Product of Undue Influence

A will by which a mother left her estate to two of her three children was not a product of influence when the third child failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of weakened intellect, a confidential relationship, and a substantial benefit. The Orphans’ Court applied the correct standard for weakened intellect, and its conclusion that the decedent was active and mentally competent was supported by the testimony of the disinterested lawyer who prepared the will and met with the decedent. Although one of the two brothers who were the beneficiaries of the will was the decedent’s agent under a power of attorney, the court concluded that “there is nothing to suggest that the parties did not deal on equal terms.” Finally, the decedent had left the remainder of her estate to two of her children because the third child had been able to purchase a substantial portion of the family farm at a discount under a deed signed by the decedent only a month before signing the new will. In re: Estate of Regina W. Brown, 733 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 5/1/2025) (non-precedential).

Unrecorded Deed Upheld

In a dispute about whether the decedent had validly conveyed a property to her daughter as joint tenants with right of survivorship, testimony about statements made by the decedent about her daughter-in-law were admissible as evidence of the decedent’s state of mind consistent with the conclusion that the decedent did not want the property to pass to her daughter-in-law under her will, a deed signed by the decedent was valid even though the deed was not correctly notarized and was not recorded within two years (see 21 P.S. § 442), and it was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to find that the testimony of the daughter was credible even though the deeds she said were signed by the decedent contained discrepancies (for which the daughter had “rational explanations”), and even though the daughter had been convicted of federal wire fraud. In re: Estate of Emma Roy, Deceased, 1564 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 4/17/2025) (non-precedential).

Executor Surcharged for Failing to File Income Tax Returns, Excessive Legal Fees, and Excessive Compensation

Executor surcharged for interest and penalties resulting from failing to file income tax returns for the estate for four years (and interest was added to that surcharge), for legal fees paid at hourly rates above prevailing rates in the county, and for an executor commission not supported by her work in the administration of the estate, which was not particularly complex and was delayed due to the executor’s negligence and inaction. An executor’s commission of 3% of the value of three parcels of real estate was allowed, but the executor was surcharged for legal fees expended to defend against the objections to her account and the estate was ordered to pay the legal fees and expert costs of the successful objecting beneficiary. Because objections to the account were sustained and surcharges imposed, the executor’s request for sanctions against the objecting beneficiary were denied. Weseman Estate, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 395 (Susquehanna O.C. 2024).

Successor Judge Recommends Reversal of Adjudication by Retired Judge

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, and yet the Orphans’ Court entered an adjudication that failed to sustain all of the objections. The judge who entered the adjudication retired, an appeal was taken to the adjudication, and the succeeding judge issued a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion recommending to the Superior Court that the appeal be sustained and the adjudication be vacated because the adjudication represented an abuse of discretion. Beam Estate, Principal, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 385 (Philadelphia O.C. 2024), on app., 768 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.)

Trustee May Be Surcharged for Benefit from Self-Dealing (Super. Ct.)

When a trustee engages in an act of self-dealing by using trust assets as collateral for loans taken out for the benefit of the trustee and his family, the court may impose a surcharge based on the benefit to the trustee and his family even though there was no loss to the trust and no profit to the trustee personally. In re: Credit Trust under the Will of William R. Cameron Jr., Trusts, 2025 PA Super 82 (4/9/2025), aff’ng, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 205 (Bucks O.C. 2024).