After discovery was completed in this will contest, the depositions of long-time friends of the decedent as to the execution of the will, and medical records that did not show a lack of testamentary capacity or weakened intellect, made summary judgment appropriate because there were no genuine issues of material facts. In re: Estate of Donald E. Markelwitz, 1738 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 7/20/2026) (non-precedential).
A claim against decedent’s agent for proceeds of property sold more than two years before the decedent’s death, and more than seven years before a petition was filed in the Orphans’ Court, was barred by the two year statute of limitation under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524. In re: Estate of: Georgios Lolosidis, 797 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 7/20/2026) (non-precedential), aff’g No. 767-2023 (Delaware O.C. 6/1/2025) (a copy of the opinion of the Orphans’ Court is attached to the opinion of the Superior Court).
Whether the beneficiary had standing to bring a malpractice action against the attorney for the executor was not relevant to whether the beneficiary had standing to seek the removal of the executor for employing the attorney, and the decedent not bringing a malpractice action against the attorney during her lifetime did not necessarily bar a malpractice action by her executor, so it was an error by the Orphans’ Court to grant preliminary objections to the beneficiary’s petition to remove the executor for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. In re: Estate of Deborah A. Haugh, 1457 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 8/18/2026) (non-precedential).
The Pa. Supreme Court has amended Pa. R.O.C.P. 15.2, 15.7, 15.8, 15.9, 15.10, and 15.13, and adopted a new Rule 15.24, in order to implement changes required by federal regulations under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq. These rules were previously published as proposed rules, and will be effective October 1, 2026. “Order Amending Rules 15.2, 15.7, 15.8, 15.9, 15.10, and 15.13; and Adopting Rule 15.24 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure; No. 1054 Supreme Court Rules Docket” (7/29/2026), 56 Pa.B. 5385 (8/15/2026).
It was neither an error of law nor an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to:
- Reduce legal fees charged to an estate to an hourly rate more consistent with local rates;
- Surcharge the executor for interest and penalties incurred by filing late income tax returns for the estate;
- Reduce the commissions claimed by the executor when the executor presented little evidence of her services and the claimed “complexity” of the administration of the estate was mainly due to the executor’s own lack of diligence;
- Deny legal fees paid by the executor to defend the legal fees paid by the executor; and
- Require the estate to pay the legal fees of the beneficiaries whose objections benefitted the estate.
In the Matter of the Estate of Walter Weseman, 961 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 7/23/2026) (non-precedential), aff’g, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 395 (Susquehanna O.C. 2024).
[Note: A citation to this opinion has been added to the article “Non-Reimbursable Legal Fees of Fiduciaries.”]
The Orphans’ Court erred as matter of law in allowing legal fees and executor’s commission based only on a percentage of the value of the estate, and in placing the burden on the objectants to show that the resulting fees and commissions were unreasonable. Estate of Clea Andrews, Deceased, ___ A.4th ___, 2026 PA Super 168 (7/31/2026).
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.