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 Super. 3/31/2026) (non-precedential).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.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has “vacated” the regulation requiring reports of non-financed residential real estate transactions as outside of the scope of the authority granted by Congress. Flowers Title Companies LLC v. Bessent, Case No. 6:25-cv-127 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Texas 3/19/2026).
Erie Orphans’ Court Rule 5.6, for the emergency appointment of a guardian of the estate or person of a minor, has been rescinded, effective thirty days after publication in the Pa. Bulletin. “Order Rescinding Erie O.C.R. 5.6; Doc. No. 2026-00042” (3/2/2026), 56 Pa.B. 1419 (3/14/2026).
The decedent’s will appointed one of the decedent’s children as executor and directed that, if there was any dispute as to any property, the executor had the power to divide the assets of the estate among the children in the executor’s sole judgment, but that power was not significant enough to constitute a “substantial benefit” in a challenge to the validity of the will for undue influence. In re: Constance Ruggere, Deceased, 769 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 3/10/2026) (non-precedential).