The various Supreme Court Procedural Rules Committees have proposed a new set of rules for the interpretation and construction of the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, including the Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure. Proposed Rules of Judicial Administration 104 through 115 contain fairly standard rules of construction and would be incorporated into the Orphans’ Court rules by a cross-reference in amended Rule 1.2(b). “Proposed New Pa.R.J.A. 104-115; Rescission of Pa.R.Civ.P. 101-104, 106-108 and 127-153; Amendment of Pa.R.Civ.P. 126, Pa.R.O.C.P. 1.2, Pa.R.Crim.P. 101, Pa.R.J.C.P. 101 and 1101, Pa.R.A.P. 107 and 903, Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 204 and Pa.R.E. 101,” 51 Pa.B. 5532 (9/4/2021).
An allegation that the decedent wanted to “discuss” adding the plaintiffs to his will or making gifts to them is not sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional interference with an inheritance, and there is no cause of action for intentional interference with a gift. Tecce v. Tecce, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 133 (Delaware C.P. 2020).
It is proper for a court to enforce a prior settlement order against an insurance company for a wrongful death and survival action, even though the settlement amount exceeds the policy limits, when the initial release was prepared by the insurer’s attorney, the attorney received notice of the filing of the petition to approve the settlement, there was no appeal from the approval, and there was no fraud, misrepresentation, or mutual mistake. Edwards Estate, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 123 (Bucks O.C. 2021), on appeal, 188 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super.).
Although the trustee had the discretion to deny requested withdrawals by the beneficiary if in the opinion of the trustee the beneficiary is suffering from a disability that renders him unable to manage his own affairs, the trustee failed to properly use that discretion when the “disability” was childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) allegedly aggravated by marijuana use. Harrison Trust, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 116 (Bucks O.C. 2021) (trust governed by Florida law), aff’d 635 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 1/4/2022) (non-precedential).
There was evidence of donative intent by the decedent to give her former son-in-law $500,000, but not $1,000,000, so the transfer of $1,000,000 by the decedent was a partial gift, but the gift was invalid because of the presumption of undue influence by the son-in-law who was also the decedent’s agent and caretaker. The additional $500,000 was obtained for promises made by the son-in-law to take care of the decedent, which he did not do and so was unjustly enriched. In re: Barbara D. Dotter, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 107 (Allegheny O.C. 2019).
In a challenge to the validity of a deed executed seven months before the death of the decedent, the petitioner did not provide clear and convincing evidence of lack of capacity or weakened intellect when witnesses provided conflicting accounts of the decedent’s capacity, there was a lack of competent medical evidence of decedent’s alleged dementia, there was a lack of information about decedent’s mental state at the time of the execution of the initial deed and the execution of a corrective deed, and there was evidence that decedent’s mental state varied depending on whether she was taking medications. Estate of Estella E. Kageos, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 89 (Berks O.C. 2021).
Without first publishing a proposed amendment for public comment, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has adopted an amendment to Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g), which was adopted in 2020 to make it professional misconduct for a lawyer to “knowingly manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment or discrimination….” What seems to be the critical part of the amendment is the change from “knowingly manifest bias or prejudice” to “knowingly engage in conduct.’ The cross-reference to applicable federal and state laws was also deleted and several official comments were revised. “Amendment of Rule 8.4 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct; No. 213 Disciplinary Rules Doc.” (7/26/2021), 51 Pa.B. 4260 (8/7/2021).
This change was apparently made in order to address a finding of unconstitutionality by a federal district judge. See, Greenberg v. Haggerty, 491 F.Supp.3d 12 (E.D. Pa. 2020), and the dissenting statement by Supreme Court Justice Mundy opines that the amendment fails to cure the rule’s unconstitutional nature.
The Supreme Court has adopted new Orphans’ Court rules for adoption proceedings. “Order Amending Rule 1.5 and Rescinding and Replacing Rules 15.1 through 15.9 of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules, Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Forms 15.6, 15.8 and 15.9, and Paragraph (F) of the Index to the Appendix of the Forms of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules; No. 874 Supreme Court Rules Doc.” (7/22/2021), 51 Pa.B. 4267 (8/7/2021).
These new rules were proposed by the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee in 2016. “Proposed Rescission of Rules 15.1 through 15.9 and Replacement with the New Rules of Chapter XV,” 46 Pa.B. 332 (1/16/2016).
In a separate order, the Supreme Court vacated all local adoption rules effective July 1, 2022, unless rules “deemed necessary” by the local president judge are submitted for review by the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee by February 1, 2022. “Review and Vacatur of Local Orphans’ Court Rules; No. 875 Supreme Court Rules Doc.” (7/22/2021), 51 Pa.B. 4313 (8/7/2021).
Bucks County has rescinded local Orphans’ Court Rule 4.7A, effective immediately. According to the order, a new rule must be promulgated before the Clerk may implement any electronic filing system. “Rescission of Orphans’ Court Rule 4.7A” (6/28/2021), 51 Pa.B. 3732 (7/10/2021).