It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to dismiss the incapacitated person’s petition to reconsider or modify the original adjudication of incapacity without a hearing when the petition merely alleged that the incapacitated person “no longer exhibits the behavior pattern” that led to the original petition without any allegation of any evidence that what was found to be a permanent short-term memory impairment that was unlikely to change had actually changed. The Superior Court also affirmed the denial of a change of guardian, the denial of a declaratory judgment as to testamentary capacity, and the denial of legal fees for counsel engaged by the incapacitated person. In re: Guardianship of H.T., 1675 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 10/18/2023) (non-precedential).
A revocable trust was a “living trust” and so exempt from realty transfer tax even though the trust document originally allowed distributions to persons other than a settlor if a settlor became incapacitated because a retroactive modification of the trust under 20 Pa.C.S. § 7740.6 to carry out the settlors’ tax objections was approved by the court and the modification was effective even though the petition was filed after the realty was transferred and even though the Commonwealth was not a party to the modification proceeding. Ebersole v. Commonwealth, ___ A.3d ___, 360 F.R. 2020 (Cmwlth. 10/10/2023).
The Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts has announced that, beginning on Monday, October 2, 2023, appellate briefs that have been filed for cases in the Supreme, Superior, and Commonwealth Courts will be available for viewing through the UJS Web Portal (https://ujsportal.pacourts.us).
This “Appellate Briefs” feature will be located under the PACFile menu. Pursuant to Supreme Court order “Limited Pilot Program for Remote Access to Images of Briefs in PACFile; No. 597 Judicial Administration Docket” (9/28/2023), 53 Pa.B. 6469 (10/14/2023), and Pa.R.A.P. 125, this feature will initially operate as a pilot program, and will be available only to attorneys who (a) are active members of the Pennsylvania Bar or emeritus attorneys performing pro bono services and (b) have an active account to use the PACFile system.
For more information on the use of this feature, see the UJS Web Portal’s Help site: Appellate Briefs (pacourts.us).
When one spouse has filed for divorce, alleging that the marriage is irretrievably broken, and the other spouse fails to file an answer and dies before any judgment is entered, the grounds for divorce have not been established within the meaning 23 Pa.C.S. § 3323(g)(3) if no affidavit has been filed that complies with section 23 Pa.C.S. § 3301(d), and judicial estoppel does not apply even though a petition for special relief alleged that “grounds here have been established” because the petition did not allege facts necessary to 3301(d), so the divorce action was discontinued and the rights of the parties were to be determined under the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code. Shell v. Estate of Shell, 2023 PA Super 295, ___ A.3d ___ (10/3/2023).
When the settlor of the trust transferred a residence to a trust for the benefit her son and daughter-in-law, who were also trustees, and there was an unwritten “understanding” that the trustees/beneficiaries would pay the mortgage, and did pay the mortgage for many years, the late charges on the mortgage were not debts of the trust but of the surviving trustee/beneficiary. Although the trustees had the power to mortgage the trust property, the son as beneficiary was denied the power to transfer or mortgage his interests in the trust, and so the son’s taking an additional mortgage against the property was improper, and the surviving trustee was prohibited from using trust funds to pay the second mortgage and was properly surcharged for those payments even though she herself did not benefit from the second mortgage. Attorneys’ fees of the trustees were properly denied when the trustees failed to meet their burden of proof to show which fees were incurred in administering the trust and which fees related to their breach of trust. In re: Sletten Family Trust, 2023 PA Super 186, ___ A.3d ___ (9/27/2023).
Although the appellant had failed to file a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal even though appellant’s counsel being personally advised by the Orphans’ Court that an order was being signed allowing an extension of time to file the statement, and so appellant had waived his claims on appeal, the Superior Court held that the Orphans’ Court had not abused its discretion, and had committed no error of law, in refusing to order the return of real property conveyed by an agent to himself when there was no challenge to the capacity of the decedent and the uncontradicted evidence was that the decedent had directed the agent to make the conveyance, rather than the decedent making the conveyance, as a matter of convenience to the decedent. In re: Estate of Bernard D. Rush, 2023 PA Super 185, ___ A.3d ___ (9/26/2023), aff’g1 Fid.Rep.4th 143 (Washington O.C. 2022) (see “Decedent Approved Sale of Real Estate“).
The Superior Court has affirmed that a will with an electronic signature, affixed by the decedent using DocVerify system during a videoconference with two witnesses and a notary public, is not a valid will, which requires the testator’s “manual signature.” Kittler Estate, 2023 PA Super 180, ___ A.3d ___ (9/25/2023), aff’g 1 Fid.Rep.4th 53 (Lancaster O.C. 2022).
The validity of the appointment of a successor trustee by the beneficiaries of the trust for a trust that was created by California settlors and provided for the interpretation of the trust in accordance with California law was to be determined under the laws of Illinois and not California when the beneficiaries had the power to change the situs of the trust, the beneficiaries had transferred the situs of the trust to Illinois, and the trust was then administered by a trustee in Illinois. The successor trustee who was appointed then administered the trust in Pennsylvania with the consent of the beneficiaries, and a California court ruled that it no longer had jurisdiction over the trust because the principal place of administration was in Pennsylvania, so the administration of the trust was then governed by Pennsylvania law and the attempt by the beneficiaries to remove the successor trustee was invalid under Pennsylvania law. In re: Dille Family Trust, 96 WDA 2022 and 97 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 9/19/2023) (non-precedential).
[For an earlier opinion for the same case, upholding sanctions against the beneficiaries for attempting to obtain the consent of a different California court for the distribution of the trust assets, see “Contempt Affirmed over Situs Dispute,” summarizing 853 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 9/11/2023) (non-precedential). A later opinion denied the beneficiaries the power to change the situs while the litigation was pending, “Situs of Trust Was Not Effectively Changed by Beneficiaries,” summarizing 26 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential). Another later opinion involving this trust is “Denial of Expanded Intervention Was Abuse of Discretion,” summarizing 1326 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential).]]
The imposition of sanctions for contempt is an appealable order, and the Orphans’ Court did not abuse its discretion in holding the beneficiaries of a trust in contempt, and imposing the payment of the trustee’s legal fees as sanctions, when the court had enjoined all parties from transferring or distributing any trust assets and the beneficiaries had filed an action in California (where the trust was created and initially administered) seeking to terminate the trust and distribute all its assets. In re: Dille Family Trust, 853 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 9/11/2023) (non-precedential).
[The merits of the dispute over the situs of the trust was addressed in a later opinion, 96 WDA 2022 and 97 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 9/19/2023) (non-precedential), which was summarized in “Choice of Law for Administration of Trust.” A later opinion also denied the beneficiaries the power to change the situs while the litigation was pending, “Situs of Trust Was Not Effectively Changed by Beneficiaries,” summarizing 26 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential). Another later opinion involving this trust is “Denial of Expanded Intervention Was Abuse of Discretion,” summarizing 1326 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential).]
The various procedural rules committees have proposed a number of new and amended rules, including Orphans’ Court rules, to establish uniform procedures for the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (”SCRA”), 50 U.S.C. §§ 3901 et seq., and the Military and Veterans Code (”Code”), 51 Pa.C.S. §§ 101 et seq. “Proposed Amendment of Pa.R.A.P. 1517, 1732, 1781, 3307, and 3309; Adoption of Pa.R.Civ.P. 243 and 1930.10, Rescission of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1920.46, and Amendment of Pa.R.Civ.P. 216, 237.1, 1037, 1303, 1901.6, 1910.11, 1910.12, 1915.4-2, 1915.4-3, 1915.17, 1920.42, 1920.51, 1930.6, 1956, and 2955; Adoption of Pa.R.O.C.P. 2.12, 3.16, and 15.23, and Amendment of Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.1, 15.7, 15.8, 15.9, 15.10, and 15.13; Amendment of Pa.R.Crim.P. 150, 430, 431, and 515; Adoption of Pa.R.J.C.P. 1206, and Amendment of Pa.R.J.C.P. 1122, 1242, and 1406; and Amendment of Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 209, 304, 308, 403, 405, 410, 503, 506, 515, and 516,” 53 Pa.B. 5709 (9/16/2023).