Proposed State-Wide Notice on Generative AI

Posted on by October 25, 2026

The Pa. Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence has proposed a state-wide notice requiring a certification that a party has properly reviewed anything filed with a court that was created in whole or in part with “generative artificial intelligence.” Written comments on the proposal should be submitted by November 24, 2026. “Proposed Notice Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by All Court Filers and Certification of Compliance,” 56 Pa.B. 6888 (10/24/2026).

Local rules have previously been adopted for Dauphin,  Butler, and Westmoreland counties.  For additional information on why the use of generative AI in legal drafting can cause problems, see “Problems with ‘Chatbots.'”

[Note by DBE: The proposal is for a “notice” and not a rule, and that terminology is new to me (and somewhat puzzling).]

Executor Removed for Conflicts of Interest Relating to Corporation (Pa. Super. NP)

Posted on by October 25, 2026

The Orphans’ Court did not abuse its discretion in removing the executor of an estate when the executor had multiple conflicts of interest because of his roles as an officer of and counsel to the corporation which was the primary asset of the estate, his role in the litigation by the corporation against a foreign government, and various disputes about his compensation in those roles. The court also properly found that the executor breached a fiduciary duty by failing to seek the informed consent of the primary beneficiary of the estate to the increase in the attorneys’ fees payable to the executor as counsel to the corporation. In re: Estate of Dale C. Stoffel, 236 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 10/22/2026) (non-precedential).

Nullification of Power of Attorney of Incapacitated Person (Pa. Super. NP)

Posted on by October 25, 2026

It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to nullify the power of attorney signed by the alleged incapacitated person (AIP) and appoint a plenary guardian for her when the AIP had Down’s syndrome and several personality disorders, and an expert witness evaluated her mental age to be approximately that of a seven-year-old. It was proper for the court to appoint a third-party professional guardian, rather than the brother who had previously served as agent under the power of attorney, because the brother had provided physical care of the AIP but had not supported the AIP’s relationship with other siblings and had not facilitated the AIP’s engagement with social and community services and programming. In re: A.L.B., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, 167 WDA 2026 (Pa. Super. 10/16/2026) (non-precedential).

Preliminary Injunction Against Co-Trustees (Pa. Super. NP)

Posted on by October 25, 2026

In response to a petition by one of three trustees (who is also a trust beneficiary) seeking removal of the other two trustees, a preliminary injunction barring the other trustees from amending the governing documents of entities controlled by the trustees, from changing ownership of the entities or making distributions from the entities, and from removing one of the trustees from the management of the entities, was proper because the possible harm in the absence of the injunction can be estimated only by conjecture, and not by an accurate pecuniary standard, and so the possible harm is considered irreparable. Although the trust documents gave the trustees wide latitude in dealing with the family-owned entities held in the trusts, evidence of self-dealing and other breaches of fiduciary duties establish grounds for removal and so the petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits. In re: Treasure Lake Trust and Rigas Trust, 1232 WDA 2024 and 847 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 10/19/2026) (non-precedential).

Orphans’ Court Had Discretion to Appoint “Other Fit Person” as Administrator (Pa. Super.)

Posted on by October 11, 2026

A trial court always has the power to reconsider its own decisions, without any requirement of manifest error or new evidence, and it was particularly appropriate for the Orphans’ Court to reconsider its order appointing an administrator of an estate when there had been multiple petitions requesting appointment for different administrators and the appointment was made in response to an amended petition without notice to any other party in interest. Because the register of wills had certified the appointment of the administrator to the Orphans’ Court, the court had the same discretion as the register to appoint “any fit person” to serve as administrator when there was no one with greater priority in the order of persons eligible for appointment. It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to appoint a lawyer experienced in estate administration, and who was preferred by the mothers of the two minor heirs, as administrator over the decedent’s mother, who was not an intestate heir, had health issues, did not have a personal relationship with the decedent’s minor sons, and expected to claim a commission of 5% in addition to legal fees and other costs, because the mother’s family relationship to the decedent did not give her any preference or priority. Estate of Trever Glen Staten, ___ A.4th ___, 2026 PA Super 227 (10/8/2026).

University Was Trustee but Not Beneficiary of Charitable Trust (Pa. Super. NP)

Posted on by October 11, 2026

While the individual members of the “board of managers” of the educational center established by the donor have a proprietary right and interest in the their control over the donated funds, and so were indispensible parties to the litigation over the funds, it was not necessary to serve them with citations because they were petitioners in the initial action that was filed in the civil division and transferred to the Orphans’ Court, and had already consented to the jurisdiction of the court. The Orphans’ Court erred when it held that the deed of gift by donor to the university did not create a trust because the university was named as both the trustee and sole beneficiary, and that the legal and equitable interests were merged, because the deed of gift was intended to create a charitable trust, for which a designated beneficiary is not required. Because there was a dispute on whether the donor had ever signed the deed of gift, and a writing signed by the settlor is required to create a trust, the order granting judgment on the pleadings was vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Allan P. Kirby Center for Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship, 538 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 10/6/2026) (non-precedential).

Injunction Against Interference with Charity Affirmed (Pa. Cmwlth. NR)

Posted on by October 12, 2026

A permanent injunction issued by the Orphans’ Court was not outside of the scope requested, and was not impermissibly vague, overbroad, or imprecise, when a charitable organization formed by a fraternal organization petitioned for a declaration that it was “separate and distinct” from the fraternal organization and the Orphans’ Court enjoined the fraternal organization from attempting to take control of the charity’s assets or interfering with the performance of the duties of the charity’s officers and trustees. It was also not error for the Orphans’ Court to conclude that amendments to the articles of incorporation that were never filed were ineffective, and that by-law amendments that conflicted with the unamended articles were also ineffective. It was within the discretion of the Orphans’ Court to refuse to hear claims brought under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, but the court should have transferred those claims to the civil division and not simply ignored them. Home for Orphans of Odd Fellows of Pennsylvania, 1213 C.D. 2023 and 1434 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Cmwlth. 10/8/2026) (opinion not reported).

Dauphin Co. Rule for Generative AI

Posted on by October 2, 2026

Dauphin County has joined Butler and Westmoreland counties in adopting a general rule requiring the disclosure of the use of “generative artificial intelligence” (also known as “large language models”) in the preparation of any pleading or other filing submitted to the court. “Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence; No. 10-08-MD-2026; No. 2026-CV-00105-AO; No. 2226-0001; AO-08-2026” (9/7/2026), 56 Pa.B. 6483 (10/3/2026).

See “Problems with ‘Chatbots’” for additional information on why the use of generative AI in legal drafting can cause problems.

Proposed Regulations on Income Tax Payable on Sale of Farmland

Posted on by September 29, 2026

The Internal Revenue Service has published proposed regulations on the installment payments of federal income tax that may be payable on the gain realized in a qualified sale or exchange of farmland under I.R.C. section 1062. “Election To Pay in Installments Tax on Gain From Certain Farmland Property,” 91 FR 61367 (9/29/2026).

.

Appointment of One Parent as Administrator (Pa. Super. NP)

Posted on by September 27, 2026

It was not an abuse of discretion for the Register of Wills to appoint the decedent’s mother to administer her daughter’s estate, and not the father, and it was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to refuse to overturn the appointment on appeal. The mother and father were the two intestate heirs, and had equal claims to letters of administration, but the mother and father were divorced and would be unable to serve together as co-administrators. The deceased daughter had lived with her mother (and not her father) for most of her life, and the father had a history of mental illness and criminal convictions and had been unable to work for several years, while the mother owned a business and was familiar with the duties of administering an estate, leading the Register to conclude that the mother was better suited to administer the estate. In re: Estate of Makayla N. Belton, 2786 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 9/21/2026) (non-precedential).