Decedent’s will gave her residuary estate to her two sons in equal shares, but then gave one of the sons six months within which to exercise a “right of first refusal” to take the decedent’s farm as his share of the estate at a specified value. The Orphans’ Court erred in finding the right of first refusal to be unenforceable precatory language. The Superior Court found that the language of the right of first refusal was ambiguous because it was not clear why the decedent put a value on the farm for the purpose of the distribution of the estate, and the record did not show the relationship of the value of the farm to the decedent’s entire estate. The judgment of the Orphans’ Court was therefore vacated and the case remanded so that a hearing could held to take extrinsic evidence of the decedent’s circumstances and intent. In re: Estate of Geraldine F. Altland, 867 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 7/17/2026) (non-precedential).
It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to refuse to expunge the petitioner’s record of involuntary commitment, and restore his right to possess firearms, despite testimony in support of the petition from the petitioner’s family and a psychologist, when the petition was filed only seven months after the commitment and the petitioner’s current treatment plan was intended to address possible anxieties and rule out a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Z.C. v. Allegheny Co. Dept. of Behavioral Health, 1597 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 7/15/2026) (non-precedential).
Complaint for damages allegedly caused by the negligence of the decedent that was served on the decedent’s spouse and named the decedent’s spouse as personal representative of the decedent’s estate was void when the spouse was never appointed to be the personal representative and the plaintiff made no effort to secure the appointment of an administrator of the estate before the expiration of the statute of limitations. Glenn Eric Nyce v. Evelyn R. Lewis, 1876 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 7/15/2026) (non-precedential).
As a convenience for our readers, we recently began including “(Pa. Super.)” in the titles of summaries of decisions of the Pa. Superior Court that are precedential and will be published in the Atlantic Reporter. Extending that practice, we will now be including “(Pa. Super. NP)” in the titles of summaries of Superior Court opinions that are designated “non-precedential.” (For an explanation of the possible value of those opinions, see “New Pa.R.O.C.P. 1.22 and Non-Precedential Opinions.”)
Extending this practice still further, when (or if) there are additional issues of the Fiduciary Reporter, the titles of the summaries of those new opinions will include “(O.C.)” or, the opinion is not from the Orphans’ Court, some other appropriate designation of the court issuing the opinion.
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 all contributions to Trump accounts as gifts of future interests that do not qualify for the gift tax annual exclusion.
Appellant’s claims against the estate for the decedent’s sales of his cars while he was incarcerated were barred by res judicata because he had unsuccessfully brought the same claims twice in federal court and were also barred by the two year statute of limitations for the conversion of personal property. The appellant’s claims against the property allegedly purchased by the decedent with the proceeds of conversion were outside of the administration of the estate and not proper objections to the account of the executor because the decedent had purchased the property as joint tenants with her granddaughter and so the property was not an asset of the estate. Finally, the register of wills had the power to admit a later will to probate after the original probate and grant of letters because the later will was filed within three months of death and so the probate of the later will was allowed under 20 Pa.C.S. § 3138, and no notice to the appellant was required because he was not a party in interest. In re: Estate of Bonnie M. Scheerbaum, 1331 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 6/30/2026) (non-precedential).
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 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.”]