The testimony of two doctors supported the conclusion of the Orphans’ Court that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity when she signed a will in 2012, and it was within the discretion of the court to place more weight on that evidence than the testimony of the lawyer who wrote the will. In her appeal from the probate of the will signed in 2008, the appellant alleged the existence of a 2012 will but not a 2010 will, so the existence of the 2010 will was not raised within one year of the probate of the 2008 will and the revocation of the 2008 will by the 2010 will was waived. Because the 2012 will was found to be invalid, the probate of the 2008 will was affirmed. Finally, the record supported the conclusion of the Orphans’ Court that the petition to probate the 2008 will was not a fraud on the court because the proponent of the 2008 will had no direct knowledge of the 2010 and 2012 will, and credibly believed that the later wills were invalid. In re: Estate of Naomi R. Cherup, 480 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 6/30/2026) (non-precedential).
In an action for ejectment, a quitclaim deed from the administrator of an estate to himself and his daughter was prima facie evidence of their title to the property, and so shifted the burden to the defendant to show superior title. Because the defendant failed to show that he had any claim to the property, a judgment for ejectment was proper. Anderson v. Johnson, 1072 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 6/24/2026), (non-precedential).
At the hearing on preliminary objections, and in a letter to the Superior Court in lieu of a Pa. R.A.P. 1925 opinion, the Orphans’ Court stated that it was dismissing the appellant’s petition for failure to appear at the hearing (i.e., for failure to prosecute), but in its written order the court stated that it was sustaining the preliminary objections filed by some (but not all) of the parties and dismissing the petition with prejudice. Because of the ambiguities in the rulings of the court, and the resulting uncertainty about what objections were sustained and whether the appellant could petition to open the judgment for failure to prosecute (see Pa. R.Civ.P. 218 and 3051), the Superior Court remanded the case so that the Orphans’ Court could clarify its order. Estate of Daryl Alston, 2785 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 6/23/2026), (non-precedential).
The Treasury Department has published Rev. Proc. 2026-25, 2026-29 I.R.B. 45 (7/13/2026), which creates a new “safe harbor” under which taxpayers are not required to file gift tax returns for a calendar year if (a) the only taxable gifts made during the year are cash contributions to “Trump accounts” defined by IRC § 530A for beneficiaries who have not reached age 18, (b) the total of the gifts to each Trump account beneficiary (including the gifts to the Trump account) do not exceed the federal gift tax annual exclusion (which is $19,000 for 2026), and (c) the gifts to the Trump accounts do not result in any gift tax (by reason of the application of the federal estate and gift tax exclusion amount) or generation-skipping tax (by reason of the GST exclusion).
The revenue procedure does not say that contributions to Trump accounts are present interests that qualify for the annual gift tax exclusion. Quite the opposite, in fact. The revenue procedure includes an example that states that, if any of the conditions are not met, such as making additional gifts to any Trump account beneficiary that result in total gifts that exceed the annual gift tax exclusion, the taxpayer must file a gift tax return and report the all contributions to Trump accounts as gifts of future interests, and so do not qualify for the gift tax annual exclusion.
The Orphan’s Court denied the guardian’s petition to allow the incapacitated person to continue to qualify for Medicaid through a combination of an annuity and gifts, and the Superior Court affirmed. The guardian did not aver or produce evidence that the incapacitated person’s assets were not required for her maintenance, support, and well-being, or that the proposed spend-down plan would minimize current or prospective taxes, or continue a lifetime pattern of giving, as required under 20 Pa.C.S. § 5536(b), or that the plan would benefit the incapacitated person in any way. In re: S.C., an Incapacitated Person, ___ A.4th ___, 2026 PA Super 140 (7/1/2026).
[This opinion was authored by the same justice who wrote a similar non-precedential opinion two months ago reaching the same result. See “Guardian’s Medicaid Spend-Down Plan Not Approved.”]
An appeal of a denial of legal fees is not an interlocutory appeal but an appeal allowable under Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(5) because it is a determination of whether the petitioner is a creditor of the incapacitated person’s estate. However, a determination of incapacity is a form of in rem jurisdiction, and so a lack of jurisdiction over the incapacitated person is a non-waivable lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The in rem jurisdiction that the Orphans’ Court needs to adjudicate incapacity is the “jurisdiction” that is defined by the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA), 20 Pa.C.S. Ch. 59, so an issue under the UAGPPJA may be raised at any time. Whether the alleged incapacitated person intended to leave Pennsylvania temporarily was not determined by the Orphans’ Court, so the case was remanded to make that determination as well as other factual findings that may be necessary under the UAGPPJA, before the Superior Court could reach the merits of the fee dispute. In re: Mary D. Avery, an Alleged Incapacitated Person, ___ A.4th ___, 2026 PA Super 124 (6/16/2026).
York County has adopted new or amended local rules for guardianship petitions, effective August 1, 2026. “Adoption of Local Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure; 6726-1315 AO” (6/233/2026), 56 Pa.B. 3856 (7/4/2026).
Monroe County has adopted a new local rule, Monroe Co. R.O.C. 4.7, for permissible electronic filing in the Orphans’ Court, effective thirty days after publication. “Local Rule of Orphans’ Court 4.7—Permissible e-File; 7 AD 2026; 5 CV 2026” (6/15/2026), 56 Pa.B. 3724 (6/27/2026).
A lawyer will sometimes get a call or email from the agent acting under a client’s durable general power of attorney with questions about the client’s estate plan. The lawyer continues to owe a duty of confidentiality to the client…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
Objections to an account were waived when they were not included in written objections filed in accordance with Pa. R.O.C.P. 2.7 and no request was made to amend the objections that were filed. The objections that were filed and were properly denied by the Orphans’ Court included objections to the representation of the executor by an attorney that the objectants claimed had breached fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries, objections to the payment of medical expenses which the objectants claimed should have been paid by insurance and those objection were denied because the objectants failed to offer proof of their claim (and it was the objectants and not the executor that had the burden of proof), and objections that were not “specific as to description and amount.” Estate of Caroline S. Fellman, ___ A.4th ___, 2026 PA Super 121 (6/12/2026), aff’g, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 288 (Montgomery O.C. 2025).