Proposed Changes in Rules Terminology

Posted on by August 23, 2019

The Supreme Court is considering changes to several procedural rules, including Pa.R.J.A. 103 (the procedures for adopting, filing, and publishing rules) and Pa. O.C. Rule 1.1 (short title and citation to the Orphans’ Court Rules).

The stated purpose of the proposed rules is to provide greater uniformity and consistency in the styles and terminology applicable to rules.

The title of Orphans’ Court rules would be changed from “Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules” to “Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure,” and the citation changed from “Pa.O.C. Rule” to “Pa.R.O.C.P.” in order to be more consistent with the titles and citations to the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Comments, suggestions, or objections should be submitted to the Supreme Court Rules Committee by November 15, 2019.

“Proposed Amendments of Pa.R.J.A. Nos. 101 and 103, Pa.R.C.P. Nos. 51 and 129, Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. No. 201, and Pa. O.C. Rule 1.1,” 49 Pa.B. 4809 (8/24/2019).

Testimony of Contingent Fee Witness Excluded

The Orphans’ Court improperly excluded documentary evidence of the birth records of claimants to the estate, and could not exclude the testimony of a genealogical witness to be paid on a contingent fee for a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, but could properly exclude the testimony on common law grounds as an improper fee agreement with a fact witness, and could properly conclude that the testimony deserved little or no weight. Estate of Albert Mikeska, 2019 PA Super 249 (8/20/2019).

Proposed Amendments for Client Security Fund

The Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security has proposed amendments to the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement relating to the Fund. It is stated that the majority of the amendments are “administrative in nature, or memorialize the existing practice.” “Proposed Amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement,” 49 Pa.B. 4542 (8/17/2019).

Public Access Policy Applicable Authorities

The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts has revised and republished the list of applicable authorities that restrict public access to court records. “Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania,” 49 Pa.B. 4544 (8/17/19).

The revisions do not affect the provisions for the Orphans’ Court that can be found in “Public Access Policy Compliance for Orphans’ Court Filings.”

Delaware County Adds New O.C. Rules

In two separate orders, Delaware County has adopted several new local Orphans’ Court rules addressing guardianships, cemetery companies, and settlement of small estates.

“Local Orphans’ Court Rules Nos. 14.2—14.13; Guardianships; Orphans’ Court No. 497-19; Judicial Support Civil No. 17-5120” (Delaware Co. 6/21/2019), 49 Pa.B. 4107 (8/10/2019).

“Local Orphans’ Court Rules Nos. 2.5A (Related to Cemetery Companies) and 5.16A (Settlement of Small Estates); Orphans’ Court No. 497-19; Judicial Support Civil No. 17-5120” (Delaware Co. 6/21/2019), 49 Pa.B. 4105 (8/10/2019).

Death of Trust Beneficiary after Annuity Payment

When a trust owns an annuity contract making annual payments, the estate of a beneficiary who dies after the annual payment date but before the distribution of the payment is entitled to the deceased beneficiary’s share of the annuity payment, but not if the death occurs before the annuity payment date. Wellard R. Guffy Estate, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 171 (Lycoming O.C. 2019).

Seal Denied for Allocation of Settlement Proceeds

Petition to seal proceedings to allocate settlement between wrongful death and survival actions was denied in the absence of a showing that disclosure would work a clearly defined and serious injury to the parties, who only alleged that the “substantial settlement” might encourage other claims against the defendant hospital. Providencia Barreto Lopez Estate, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 166 (Chester O.C. 2019).

Audit of Account Not Stayed for Action in Another State

The court refused to stay its review of the account of the trustees (based on in rem jurisdiction) while an action against the same trustees for tortious conduct in the administration of the trust (based on personal jurisdiction) was pending in another state. Frederick A. Stahl Trusts, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 161 (Monroe O.C. 2019).

Both Co-Administrators Removed for Conflict

The court exercised its discretion to summarily remove both co-administrators when both had filed pleadings to remove the other, finding that an evidentiary hearing would result in delay as well as unnecessary fees and expenses, and that the discord was not likely to end by removing only one of them. Estate of Robert Johnson, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 245, No. 62DE of 2017 (Philadelphia O.C. 7/9/2019).