An historical society which had donated artifacts to a museum with rights to notice of any sale of the artifacts, a share of any proceeds of sale of any artifact, and an acknowledgement of its former ownership, did not have standing to intervene in a petition to deviate from the organizational documents of the museum in order to change its management because the society had no “substantial, direct, and immediate” contractual interest that was affected by the deviation, was not a named beneficiary of the museum, and had no “special interest” in the museum separate from its contractual rights. In re: Atwater Kent Museum, ___ A.3d ___, 1042 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmwlth. 12/19/2024).
The decision of the trustee to allocate some principal to income in accordance with 20 Pa.C.S. § 8104 in order to provide the income beneficiary with 3.2% of the three year average of the value of the trust principal was not an abuse of discretion by the trustee when the trustee had invested trust assets under a long term growth strategy and the value of the principal of the trust had increased without similar increases in income. Kline Estate, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 339 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), app. pend., 637 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.).
An agreement to settle litigation is governed by principles of contract law, and an oral agreement among multiple parties may be enforced by the court even though the parties intend to later reduce the contract to writing. The Orphans’ Court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement of a malpractice action in the Civil Division that is related to proceedings in the Orphans’ Court and part of the global settlement of the parties. Kane Trust, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 323 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), app. quashed, 557 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 7/19/2024).
The Superior Court had previously held that the decedent’s revocable trust was ambiguous and had remanded the case for the consideration of extrinsic evidence of the decedent’s intent, and so reversed the Orphans’ Court when it disregarded the evidence that was presented and again ruled in favor of the decedent’s nephew and against the decedent’s niece, finding that the Orphans’ Court disregarded the “law of the case” and that its decision was unsupported by the record. The Superior Court found that the prior wills of the decedent had been for the benefit of the niece, and that those wills, together with credible testimony of a statement by the decedent shortly before his death that he intended to benefit his niece, confirmed that the ambiguity in the revocable trust should be resolved in favor of the niece. In re: Donald Bany Revocable Living Trust, 1276 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 12/17/2025) (non-precedential).
By an order dated December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court has amended Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure 1.8, 2.4, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, and 14.14, rescinded and replaced Form G-01 (citation and notice of guardianship petition), rescinded Forms G-02, G-03, and G-05, and amended the Index to the Appendix of Orphans’ Court Forms, all of which are effective immediately. “In re: Order Amending Rules 1.8, 2.4, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, and 14.14 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure, Rescinding and Replacing Form G-01, Rescinding Forms G-02, G-03, and G-05, and Amending the Index to the Appendix of Orphans’ Court Forms; No. 1001 Rules Docket” (12/18/2024), 55 Pa.B. 7 (1/4/2025).
According to the Adoption Report of the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee, these updates to procedural rules and forms in guardianship proceedings were made to conform to changes made by the Act of December 14, 2023, P.L. 446, No. 61, which included guardianship reforms in the areas of certification of guardians, mandatory appointment of counsel, consideration of less restrictive alternatives before appointing a guardian, and scheduling review hearings within one year if there may be a change in capacity.
The amendments to the rules are based on proposals published in March 2024. See “Proposed Amendments to Guardianship Rules.”
← Previous Year | Current Year | Following Year →
HTML Version Copyright 2018-2025 Daniel B. Evans. All rights reserved.
— Short Term Rates for 2024 —
| Month | Annual | Semiann. | Quarterly | Monthly |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan. | 5.00% | 4.94% | 4.91% | 4.89% |
| Feb. | 4.68% | 4.63% | 4.60% | 4.59% |
| March | 4.71% | 4.66% | 4.63% | 4.62% |
| April | 4.89% | 4.83% | 4.80% | 4.78% |
| May | 4.97% | 4.91% | 4.88% | 4.86% |
| June | 5.12% | 5.06% | 5.03% | 5.01% |
| July | 5.06% | 5.00% | 4.97% | 4.95% |
| Aug. | 4.95% | 4.89% | 4.86% | 4.84% |
| Sept. | 4.57% | 4.52% | 4.49% | 4.48% |
| Oct. | 4.21% | 4.17% | 4.15% | 4.13% |
| Nov. | 4.00% | 3.96% | 3.94% | 3.93% |
| Dec. | 4.30% | 4.25% | 4.23% | 4.21% |
— Mid Term Rates for 2024 —
| Month | Annual | Semiann. | Quarterly | Monthly |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan. | 4.37% | 4.32% | 4.30% | 4.28% |
| Feb. | 3.98% | 3.94% | 3.92% | 3.91% |
| March | 4.13% | 4.09% | 4.07% | 4.06% |
| April | 4.30% | 4.25% | 4.23% | 4.21% |
| May | 4.42% | 4.37% | 4.35% | 4.33% |
| June | 4.66% | 4.61% | 4.58% | 4.57% |
| July | 4.49% | 4.44% | 4.42% | 4.40% |
| Aug. | 4.34% | 4.29% | 4.27% | 4.25% |
| Sept. | 4.02% | 3.98% | 3.96% | 3.95% |
| Oct. | 3.70% | 3.67% | 3.65% | 3.64% |
| Nov. | 3.70% | 3.67% | 3.65% | 3.64% |
| Dec. | 4.18% | 4.14% | 4.12% | 4.10% |
— Long Term Rates for 2024 —
| Month | Annual | Semiann. | Quarterly | Monthly |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan. | 4.54% | 4.49% | 4.47% | 4.45% |
| Feb. | 4.18% | 4.14% | 4.12% | 4.10% |
| March | 4.40% | 4.35% | 4.33% | 4.31% |
| April | 4.45% | 4.40% | 4.38% | 4.36% |
| May | 4.55% | 4.50% | 4.47% | 4.46% |
| June | 4.79% | 4.73% | 4.70% | 4.68% |
| July | 4.61% | 4.56% | 4.53% | 4.52% |
| Aug. | 4.52% | 4.47% | 4.45% | 4.43% |
| Sept. | 4.37% | 4.32% | 4.30% | 4.28% |
| Oct. | 4.10% | 4.06% | 4.04% | 4.03% |
| Nov. | 4.15% | 4.11% | 4.09% | 4.08% |
| Dec. | 4.53% | 4.48% | 4.46% | 4.44% |
The Orphans’ Court had jurisdiction to appoint an administrator of an estate following the removal of the administrator originally agreed to by the parties and it was not necessary to remand the choice of administrators to the Register of Wills. In light of the protracted litigation among the beneficiaries, it was not error to appoint an independent administrator rather than a beneficiary named in a codicil that had not been admitted to probate. Romano Estate, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 301 (Bucks O.C. 2024), aff’d 45 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 10/23/2024) (non-precedential; claims deemed waived), pet. for app., 549 MAL 2024 (Pa.).
The Orphans’ Court was justified in imposing counsel fees to an estate for “vexatious, arbitrary, and obdurate” conduct by claimants when the claims were for an unconscionable and unenforceable penalty clause in a contract and for rent under a lease which the court found was not authenticated and bore indicia of fraud, the claimants did not appeal the denial of their claims, but attempted to evade service of the citation for the petition for counsel fees and failed to appear at the hearing on the petition, and the issues raised on appeal were waived for failing to appeal the denial of their claims and failing to appear at the hearing on the petition for fees (or seek reconsideration of the grant of fees), as well as violations of the rules of appellate procedure. Mulligan Estate (No. 3), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 280 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), app. pend. 1912 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.).
[The opinions on the claims against the estate were published at 2 Fid.Rep.4th 252 and 2 Fid.Rep.4th 259, which were summarized in “Liquidated Damages of 50% of Contract Price is Unenforceable” and “Authenticity of Lease Not Proven and Claims Denied.”]
Florida was the proper jurisdiction to probate the will of the decedent, and not Pennsylvania, when the decedent was physically present in Florida for the last years of his life, had obtained a Florida driver’s license, had registered to vote in Florida, had filed nonresident Pennsylvania income tax returns, owned no real property in Pennsylvania except through a limited liability company, and had no bank accounts in Pennsylvania, although the decedent had formed a revocable trust that was administered by a Pennsylvania lawyer. Milligan Estate (No. 1), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 276 (Chester O.C.. 2024), app. pend., 2310 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.).
A more detailed Pa. R.A.P. 1925 opinion addressing the same issues has been published as Milligan Estate (No. 2), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 351 (Chester O.C. 2024).
The trustee’s final account showed that the $10 million life insurance policy owned by the trust lapsed when the obligation of the employer to pay premiums under the split dollar agreement ended, the cash surrender value of the policy was exhausted, the trust had no funds to pay premiums, and the settlor did not wish to make additional contributions to the trust for the payment of premiums. The objections to the account were dismissed because: the trustee acted in good faith when it complied with the wishes of the settlor and the settlor’s family in exchanging a $5 million joint-and-survivor life insurance policy subject to a split dollar agreement for a $10 million policy, and so complied with the standard of care in the trust agreement; the trustee violated an agreement to annually review the policy, but no harm was done because the settlor conducted annual reviews with which the trustee cooperated; the trustee was insulated from liability under 20 Pa.C.S. 7208, which states that a trustee who acquires or retains a contract of insurance on the life of the settlor or the settlor’s spouse is without liability for failing to determine whether the contract is or remains a proper investment; and the objectors failed to show that the original $5 million policy would have become self-sustaining without additional premiums, and so no damages were proven. Gardner Trust, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 269 (Cumberland O.C. 2023).