In a challenge to the validity of a deed executed seven months before the death of the decedent, the petitioner did not provide clear and convincing evidence of lack of capacity or weakened intellect when witnesses provided conflicting accounts of the decedent’s capacity, there was a lack of competent medical evidence of decedent’s alleged dementia, there was a lack of information about decedent’s mental state at the time of the execution of the initial deed and the execution of a corrective deed, and there was evidence that decedent’s mental state varied depending on whether she was taking medications. Estate of Estella E. Kageos, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 89 (Berks O.C. 2021).
Without first publishing a proposed amendment for public comment, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has adopted an amendment to Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g), which was adopted in 2020 to make it professional misconduct for a lawyer to “knowingly manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment or discrimination….” What seems to be the critical part of the amendment is the change from “knowingly manifest bias or prejudice” to “knowingly engage in conduct.’ The cross-reference to applicable federal and state laws was also deleted and several official comments were revised. “Amendment of Rule 8.4 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct; No. 213 Disciplinary Rules Doc.” (7/26/2021), 51 Pa.B. 4260 (8/7/2021).
This change was apparently made in order to address a finding of unconstitutionality by a federal district judge. See, Greenberg v. Haggerty, 491 F.Supp.3d 12 (E.D. Pa. 2020), and the dissenting statement by Supreme Court Justice Mundy opines that the amendment fails to cure the rule’s unconstitutional nature.
The Supreme Court has adopted new Orphans’ Court rules for adoption proceedings. “Order Amending Rule 1.5 and Rescinding and Replacing Rules 15.1 through 15.9 of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules, Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Forms 15.6, 15.8 and 15.9, and Paragraph (F) of the Index to the Appendix of the Forms of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules; No. 874 Supreme Court Rules Doc.” (7/22/2021), 51 Pa.B. 4267 (8/7/2021).
These new rules were proposed by the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee in 2016. “Proposed Rescission of Rules 15.1 through 15.9 and Replacement with the New Rules of Chapter XV,” 46 Pa.B. 332 (1/16/2016).
In a separate order, the Supreme Court vacated all local adoption rules effective July 1, 2022, unless rules “deemed necessary” by the local president judge are submitted for review by the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee by February 1, 2022. “Review and Vacatur of Local Orphans’ Court Rules; No. 875 Supreme Court Rules Doc.” (7/22/2021), 51 Pa.B. 4313 (8/7/2021).
The recent decision of the Supreme Court In re: Estate of William K. McAleer, 248 A.3d 416, ___ Pa. ____ (4/7/2021), is being widely discussed in the context of the extent to which the opinions and time records of the…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
Bucks County has rescinded local Orphans’ Court Rule 4.7A, effective immediately. According to the order, a new rule must be promulgated before the Clerk may implement any electronic filing system. “Rescission of Orphans’ Court Rule 4.7A” (6/28/2021), 51 Pa.B. 3732 (7/10/2021).
In a non-precedential decision, the Superior Court has affirmed that tangible personal property (wine collection, paintings, and lawn equipment) acquired during the marriage for the use of both spouses may be considered to be held as tenants by the entireties and so the sole property of the surviving spouse, citing DiFloridio v. DiFloridio, 331 A.2d 174 (Pa. 1975). In re: Estate of Paul A. Gardner, Sr., 464 MDA 2020 (Pa. Super. 7/8/2021) (non-precedential).
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court entered an order declaring an end to the statewide judicial emergency, and directing that the operation of the Unified Judicial System return to pre-pandemic states as of July 6, 2021. “General Statewide Judicial Emergency; No. 553 Judical Administration Doc.” (6/21/2021), 51 Pa.B. 3604 (7/3/2021).
On June 10, 2021, the Supreme Court entered an order amending Pa. O.C. Rule 1.1 to change the name of the rules from “Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules” to “Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure” (“Pa.R.O.C.P.”), effective October 1, 2021. According to the adoption report, the amendment is part of a number of changes to provide more uniformity among the procedural rules of different courts. “In re: Order Amending Rule 1.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure,” Supreme Court Rules Docket 871 (6/10/2021), 51 Pa.B. 3443 (6/26/2021).
A previous judge had found that the termination fee claimed by the corporate trustee was reasonable, and a hearing on the issue was not required, so the current court was bound by that earlier decree under the coordinate jurisdiction rule. The objections of the beneficiaries filed in 2009 to an account approved by the beneficiaries in 2001 were properly dismissed as untimely. Boies Est. (No. 2), 11 Fid.Rep.3d 53 (Lackawanna O.C. 2020), on appeal, .
The corporate trustee will not be surcharged for failing to diversify the investments of a trust when (a) the trust document specifically authorized the retention of the investments used to fund the trust and (b) the trust document directed that the decision of the individual trustee should prevail in any disagreement between the two trustees and the individual trustee repeatedly rejected the recommendation of the corporate trustee that the trust investments be diversified. The corporate trustee also had no duty to communicate to the beneficiaries the disagreement between the individual and corporate trustees. Boies Est. (No. 1), 11 Fid.Rep.3d 41 (Lackawanna O.C. 2020).