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 Super. 6/24/2026), (non-precedential).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 Super. 6/23/2026), (non-precedential).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[This opinion was authored by the same justice who wrote a similar non-precedential opinion two months ago reaching the same result.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.”]
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).
One of the major goals of the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act (Act of July 7, 2006, No. 98 of 2006) was to conform the laws relating to revocable trusts to the laws relating to wills and decedent’s estates. The chart below…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
In a previous article, it was suggested that the new limitation on itemized deductions, reducing itemized deductions by 2/37ths of the amount by the amount by which taxable income is subject to tax at the maximum 37% rate, should not…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here