In the absence of a petition for guardianship or a petition in the orphans’ court to approve the actions of an agent under a power of attorney, the civil division of the court of common pleas had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the title of the record owner of property in an ejectment action despite allegations that the title had been acquired title through a power of attorney that was invalid due to the incapacity of the original owner, and the civil division was not required to refer the allegations of incapacity to the orphans’ court division. Garcia v. Myatt, 1582 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/7/2026) (non-precedential).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted new rules of general application for ordering transcripts and for public access to court records, and these new rules should apply to proceedings in the Orphans’ Courts.
- For amended uniform rules governing court reporting and transcripts: “Order Amending Rules 4007, 4008, 4009, and 4011 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration; No. 657 Judicial Administration Docket” (4/21/2026), 56 Pa.B. 2505 (5/9/2026), effective November 1, 2026.
- For amended public access policy for care records: “Order Amending the Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System; No. 656 Judicial Administration Docket” (4/21/2026), 56 Pa.B. 2509 (5/9/2026), effective November 1, 2026.
The Supreme Court has amended various rules in order to consolidate the procedures for waiving fees and costs (proceeding in forma pauperis) as a new Rule of Judicial Administration 1990, replacing Rule of Civil Procedure 240. Pa. R.O.C.P. 1.40 has therefore been amended to cross-reference and incorporate Pa. R.J.A. 1990 instead of Pa. R.C.P. 240.
The new Rule 1.40 does not apply to proceedings before the Register of Wills, and will be effective on November 1, 2026.
“Order Amending Rule 1.40 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure; No. 1049 Supreme Court Rules Docket” (4/21/2026), 56 Pa.B. 2546 (5/9/2026).
[See “Proposed Changes to In Forma Pauperis Rules” for the notice of the proposed changes.]
Because the decedent’s will directed his executors to arrange for his burial, the decision of the executor to exclude his brothers from the burial service prevailed over the wishes of his two brothers, even though they were the majority of the next of kin with the closest relationship with the decedent, because the provisions for resolving disputes over the disposition of a decedent’s remains under 20 Pa.C.S. § 305(d)(2) are subject to the provisions of the decedent will. The decedent had been buried, but the case presented an exception to mootness because the dispute was capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate review. In re: Estate of Irvin Michael Singer, ___ A.4th ___, 2026 PA Super 89 (4/30/2026), aff’g on other grounds, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 240 (Philadelphia O.C. 2025).
A distribution of a 98% interest in a real estate company by a living trust upon the death of the settlor is exempt from realty transfer tax in the same way that a transfer of a direct interest in real estate would be exempt. 430 Stump Road, LLP, v. Commonwealth, 205 F.R. 2022 (Pa. Cmwlth. 5/12/2025) (en banc; not reported), aff’g, 319 A.3d 626 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024).
The trustee, who was the grandson of the settlors, was properly convicted of theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received, and misapplication of entrusted property when he transferred funds of the trust to his personal account, and then to a business account, in order to invest in his personal business, despite guidance about his duties as trustee that was given to him by the lawyer who prepared the trust document. Com. v. Bernarsky, ___ A.4th ___, 2025 PA Super 263 (11/24/20265).
The Orphans’ Court may dismiss objections to the account of the personal representative of the estate when the objections were filed by a guardian and agent for the beneficiaries of the estate and the objectant had a conflict of interest because she was seeking to purchase properties from the estate and the objections would have altered the value of properties of the estate for her benefit and to the detriment of the beneficiaries. Because the apparent conflict of interest would justify removal of the objectant as a fiduciary for the beneficiaries, it may serve as a basis for dismissing her objections to the account. In re: Estate of Elizabeth A. McCord, 1488 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 3/31/2026) (non-precedential).
A litigant cannot complain about a lack of opportunity to conduct discovery when the litigant never petitioned the Orphans’ Court for leave to conduct discovery, as required by local rules. A motion for recusal is not timely when it is made after the court has issued a final decree. In re: Mitchell E. and Karlie M. Roth Irrevocable Trust, 1409 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 4/1/2026) (non-precedential).
The Pa. Department of State has published final regulations implementing the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts, 57 Pa.C.S. Ch. 3. The regulations include a schedule of fees (4 Pa. Code § 161.1) and general regulations for notaries public (4 Pa. Code Ch. 167). These regulations became effective upon publication. “Notaries Public; Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts,” 56 Pa.B. 1672 (3/28/2026).
Berks County has rescinded Orphans’ Court Local Rules 14.3A (“Evaluation”) and 14.4A (“Representation of alleged incapacitated person”), effective thirty days after publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. “Amendments to Local Rules; No. 26-11 Prothonotary; Orphans’ Court No. 60539” (3/2/2026), 56 Pa.B. 1568 (3/21/2026). Other local rules relating to guardianships remain in effect.