Objectant to will failed to show undue influence in the execution of her mother’s will in favor of her sister’s son when the only evidence of a confidential relationship between her sister and her mother was that her sister had a power of attorney over some (but not all) of her mother’s bank accounts and her sister helped transport her mother to the office of the lawyer who prepared the will and was part of the meeting to review and sign the will, but the mother had other caretakers and the mother discussed the will with the lawyer without participation by the sister, so that there was no evidence of “overmastering influence.” There was also insufficient evidence of a substantial benefit or a weakened intellect, as evidence of physical pain or infirmity was largely irrelevant. There was also insufficient evidence of lack of testamentary capacity. Wiggs Estate, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 10 (Philadelphia Co. O.C. 2017).
Adjudication approving account was vacated, and beneficiary given an opportunity to file objections, when counsel for the beneficiary was informed that an account would be filed, and copies of the account and statement of proposed distribution were mailed to beneficiary’s counsel, but beneficiary’s counsel was never given notice required by Pa.O.C. Rule 2.5 and local rules of the date of the filing of the account and the last date for filing objections. Butz Estate, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 7 (Monroe Co. O.C. 2017).
All compensation denied to an executor who was unsuccessful in selling the decedent’s mobile home, allowed the estate’s bank account to be embezzled by her attorney, allowed specifically bequeathed property to be sold and then turned over the proceeds of sale to her attorney who embezzled them as well, and put her own interests ahead of the other beneficiaries of the estate. Walter Estate, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 1 (Cumberland Co. O.C. 2017), aff’d, 2018 PA Super 179, 844 MDA 2017 (6/22/2018).
The decision of the Superior Court in Passarelli Family Trust, 2017 PA Super 366 (11/16/2017), which reversed the Orphans’ Court decision published at 7 Fid.Rep.3d 63 (O.C. Chester Co. 2016), has been withdrawn and the case will scheduled for reargument en banc. 3150 EDA 2016 (1/12/18).
Update: The en banc decision was published as Passarelli Family Trust, 2019 PA Super 95 (3/28/2019) (en banc).
Update: An appeal has been allowed by the Supreme Court, 235 MAL 2019 (9/11/2019).
Woman who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s nine years before, and whose mental capacity had continued to decline, was adjudicated incapacitated and the two daughters who had helped to take care of her and her husband before his death were appointed as guardians. The will signed by the mother in favor of her son was found to be the product of undue influence by the son, who had convinced his mother that her daughters were stealing from her. The power of attorney obtained by the son was void for lack of capacity, along with the deeds signed by the mother transferring properties from her revocable trust to herself and her son. In Re: Marie E. Douglas, Alleged Incapacitated Person, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 347 (Jefferson Co. O.C. 2017).
Co-trustees of a trust cannot obtain a surcharge against a third trustee for failing to arrange for the payment of a premium on a life insurance policy when there was no clear evidence of a delegation to the third trustee. Further, there was no loss to the trust due to the lapse of the policy because the marital agreement under which the trust was funded only required that the former husband provide funding of $1 million, which his estate provided when the policy lapsed. Weintraub 1997 Trust, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 369 (Montgomery Co. O.C. 2013).
Funds which had been donated to a Philadelphia social organization that promoted gymnastics was awarded under the cy pres doctrine to a similar national organization, to be used to benefit and promote gymnastics and physical education in the Philadelphia area to the extent possible. Possession of the fund by a local university for 25 years was disregarded. Kuenzel Memorial Fund, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 380 (Monroe Co. O.C. 2017).
The Supreme Court has published an updated list of the financial institutions which are “eligible institutions” in which lawyers may deposit funds held by the lawyer as a personal representative, guardian, conservator, receiver, trustee, agent under a durable power of attorney, or other similar position. (See Pa.R.D.E. 221(b) and Pa.R.P.C. 1.15(a)(2).) “Financial Institutions Approved as Depositories for Fiduciary Accounts; No. 156 Disciplinary Rules Doc.,” 48 Pa.B. 981 (2/17/2018).
The most recent list can be found in this directory.
[This article is adapted from course materials originally published as “‘Til Debt Do Us Part” as part of the May 2010 Annual Meeting of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.] Insolvent estates seem…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee has proposed amendments to O.C. Rules 1.8 and 10.1 in order to allow the filing of forms with the Orphans’ Courts and Registers of Wills that are “identical in content and sequential ordering” as the forms approved by the Supreme Court.
The report of the Committee explains that the amendments are intended to allow the filing of third-party forms such as those created through estate administration software. (Apparently some offices have been rejecting those kinds of forms, and only accepting the exact forms published by the Supreme Court has PDFs, which was not the intention of the original rules.)
Comments may be submitted by April 6, 2018.
“Proposed Amendment of Pa. O.C. Rule 1.8 and Pa. O.C. Rule 10.1,” 48 Pa.B. 728 (2/3/2018).