Executor commissions and legal fees paid by insolvent estate to the son of the decedent will be reduced when the legal fees were in great measure incurred to defend the estate from a claim of surcharge against the decedent who was the executor and attorney for another estate (Blackmore Estate, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 170 and 6 Fid.Rep.3d 250). Durkin Estate, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 320 (Lackawanna Co. O.C. 2017)
An agent under of a power of attorney did not have a duty to claim an elective share of the estate of a deceased spouse when the surviving spouse was entitled to a gift in trust equal to the elective share, even though the gift in trust was not an “available resource” because it would not be part of the surviving spouse’s estate for purposes of the Estate Recovery Program and the Department of Human Services would be unable to recover medical assistance provided to the surviving spouse. Bond Estate, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 313 (York Co. O.C. 2017).
The transfer of more than $6 million to a joint account with the decedent’s wife six years before the decedent’s death was not invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity and was not the product of undue influence, notwithstanding that the wife had a power of attorney and the decedent was suffering from dementia. Hill Estate, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 289 (Montgomery Co. O.C. 2017).
Although federal estate tax repeal has been a talking point for the Republican party for years, and estate tax repeal was part of the tax bill that passed the House of Representatives November 16th, the amended version of H.R. 1 that passed the Senate early on Saturday morning, December 2nd, does not repeal the estate tax.
Instead, the Senate amendment doubles the basic exclusion amount, from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 (which would be $11,210,000 in 2018 with adjustments for inflation), but only for deaths occurring (and gifts made) in years 2018 through 2025. After 2025, the exclusion amount would revert to $5,000,000 (with inflation adjustments).
This is one of a number of changes between the House and Senate versions of the bill that will have to be addressed in a conference committee (assuming that the House is not willing to simply approve the Senate version of the bill). If the conference committee is able to agree on a compromise version of the bill, then both houses would have to pass the conference committee version in order for the bill to be enacted.
Six more counties have adopted public access rules to comply with Section 7 of the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, which applies to the Clerks of the Orphans’ Courts.
“Adoption of Local Rule of Judicial Administration 510; No. 90182 of 2017, A.D.” (Lawrence Co. 11/6/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7311 (12/2/17).
“Adoption of Local Rule of Judicial Administration 510—Filing of Legal Papers with Confidential Information; 2017-J-63” (Lehigh Co. 11/8/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7312 (12/2/17).
“Administrative Order; No. 2017-3297” (Mercer Co. 11/9/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7312 (12/2/17).
“Rescission of the Public Access Policy of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania Adopted October 15, 2012, and Adoption of Phila.R.J.A. Nos. *401, *402 and *403; No. 02 of 2017” (Philadelphia Co. 11/13/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7309 (12/2/17). [These rules were later updated to reflect amendments to the statewide public access policy. See “Amendment of Phila.R.J.A. Nos. *401, *402 and *403; No. 02 of 2017” (Philadelphia Co. 5/10/2018), 48 Pa.B. 3078 (5/26/2018).]
“Adoption of Local Rule of Judicial Administration 510; No. 90182 of 2017, A.D.” (Warren and Forest Cos. 11/14/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7312 (12/2/17).
Delaware County has amended the fee schedules of the Register of Wills and Clerk of the Orphans’ Court, increasing the Judicial Computer System (JCS) Fee from $35.50 to $40.25, the Register of Wills Automation Fee from $15.50 to $15.75, and the Orphans’ Court Computerization Fee from $15.50 to $15.57, each to be effective November 30, 2017. “Amendments to the Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans’ Court Division Fee Schedules; File No. 638-2017” (Delaware Co. 11/6/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7185 (11/25/2017).
Five more counties have adopted public access rules to comply with Section 7 of the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, which applies to the Clerks of the Orphans’ Courts.
“Adoption of Rule of Judicial Administration L101 Regarding Confidential Case Documents Public Access Policy; No. 2017-1917” (Cameron Co. 10/25/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7185 (11/25/17).
“Adoption of Rule of Judicial Administration L101 Regarding Confidential Case Documents Public Access Policy; No. 2017-756” (Elk Co. 10/25/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7186 (11/25/2017).
“Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts; AD-98-17” (Schuylkill Co. 10/16/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7187 (11/18/2017).
“Consolidated Rules of Court; No. 56 Misc. 2017” (Somerset Co. 11/7/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7187 (11/25/2017).
“Public Access to Case Records in the Court of Common Pleas; No. 2017-1” (Washington Co. 10/27/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7209 (11/25/2017).
The Orphans’ Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a petition to disinter the remains of the petitioner’s mother for the purpose of conducting an autopsy to determine if the death was not natural when the petition was filed more than three years after death and the petitioner’s own expert testified that the most likely cause of death was a natural one. In re: Estate of Marcella Marie Marsh, 2017 PA Super 373 (11/22/2017).
Foreign marriage was found to be valid, and surviving spouse entitled to elect against the decedent’s will, where there documentary evidence of a valid marriage in Nepal and there was no evidence of any insanity or mental disorder rendering either party incapable of consenting to the marriage, despite claims that the marriage was entered into to evade federal immigration law. Affidavits of relatives were found to be inadmissible hearsay. Rosmarin Estate, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 264 (Bucks Co. O.C. 2017), aff’d, 1132 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. 8/20/2018) (non-precedential).
Father who failed to provide financial support and failed to visit his minor child had forfeited his intestate rights and was not entitled to a share of the wrongful death proceeds. Turner v. Cambridge Beauty Supply, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 256 (Philadelphia O.C. 2016), aff’d sub nom. Turner v. Helen of Troy, L.P., 490 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. 12/15/2017) (non-precedential).