In action against agent, former beneficiary of retirement account had standing to object to change of beneficiary designation by agent. Because the action was against the agent individually, and not the decedent’s estate, the Dead Man’s Rule will not apply. Objections based on statutes of limitations were dismissed, and the jurisdiction of the court was not pre-empted by ERISA. Winfield Scott Lasser Estate, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 305 (Chester O.C. 2019).
The court approved the agreement of sale of real estate that was signed by only one of the co-trustees and opposed by the other co-trustee, finding that the sale was in the best interests of the trust. Frances Nowicki Estate, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 297 (Bucks O.C. 2019), on appeal, 2184 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super.)
In finding that the testator was “quite lucid” at the time the will was signed and was not suffering from weakened intellect, the Orphans’ Court applied the wrong standard because undue influence is generally a gradual process and the fruits of the influence may not appear until long after the weakened intellect has been played upon. Applying the correct standard to the evidence, the Superior Court found that the testator was suffering from a weakened intellect and that there was a presumption that the will was the product of undue influence. The trial court also erred in failing to qualify a registered nurse as an expert witness on the issues of testamentary capacity and weakened intellect, but that error was not reversible error because the contestants were not prejudiced. Estate of: Stella Fabian, 2019 PA Super 334 (11/7/2019), rev’g, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 1 (Carbon O.C. 2018).
For some reason, the web addresses (also known as “uniform resource locators” or “URLs”) of the on-line versions of the Pa. Bulletin and the Pa. Code (regulations) have changed. The Pa. Bulletin had been “pabulletin.com” and the Pa. Code had been “pacode.com”, but they are now both found at “pacodeandbulletin.gov”.
Evans Estate Law Resources has always worked to provide links to original source materials, so that practitioners can check original sources and be assured of seeing authentic materials. This kind of change in URLs is therefore of concern because it “breaks” all of the links constructed over the years.
The links to the Pa. Bulletin still seem to work, so there is currently some kind of redirection in place, but it’s not known how long they will work, and so efforts will be made to update the links.
The old links to the Pa. Code do not seem to work, so priority will be given to updating those links first.
Our apologies for any inconvenience that may result from this transition.
The Internal Revenue Service has published proposed regulations that include new life expectancy tables for minimum required distributions under I.R.C. § 401(a)(9), which applies to both qualified retirement plans and individual retirement accounts. “Updated Life Expectancy and Distribution Period Tables Used for Purposes of Determining Minimum Required Distributions,” REG-132210-18, 84 F.R. 60812 (11/8/2019).
The proposed new tables generally provide for longer life expectancies, which means that smaller distributions can be made. For example, a 70- year old IRA owner who uses the Uniform Lifetime Table to calculate required minimum distributions must use a life expectancy of 27.4 years under the existing regulations. Using the Uniform Lifetime Table in the proposed regulations, the IRA owner would use a life expectancy of 29.1 years to calculate required minimum distributions. So the required distribution would be calculated by dividing by 29.1 (3.436% of the retirement fund) instead of 27.4 (3.650%), which is a reduction of about 5.85%.
As another example, a 75-year old surviving spouse who is the employee’s sole beneficiary and uses the Single Life Table to compute required minimum distributions must use a life expectancy of 13.4 years under current regulations. Under the proposed regulations, the spouse would use a life expectancy of 14.8 years, which will allow a distribution which is about 9.5% smaller.
The Required Minimum Distribution calculator in Webcalculators has already been updated to include the new life expectancy tables as an option for projecting future distributions. Although the calculator does not show a side-by-side comparison between distributions under the current and proposed regulations, it is fairly easy to generate two reports under the two different regulations and see the differences in the two reports.
The Internal Revenue Service has released Rev. Proc. 2019-44, which contains the inflation adjustments to tax brackets, the federal estate tax exclusion amount, and other numbers for use in 2020.
The inflation adjustments published by the IRS are the same as the inflation adjustments previously calculated following the publication of the Chained Consumer Price Index (C-CPI-U) for August 2019, and published as “Unofficial Inflation Adjustments for 2020.”
The Supreme Court has entered an order adopting amendments to Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules as well as changes to some of the forms used by the Orphans’ Court and Register of Wills. The report of the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee explaining the changes has also been published. “Order Amendment Rules 1.7, 1.8, 2.1, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5, 3.7, 4.3, 4.6, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 7.1, 10.1, 10.5, and the Index of the Appendix of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules, and Rescinding and Replacing Forms OC-1 Through OC-5 and RW-03 Through RW-10,” No. 808 Supreme Court Rules Doc. (10/31/2019), 49 Pa.B. 6804 (11/16/2019).
Many of the changes are typographical, grammatical, or otherwise minor, but the following changes may be of interest:
- An explanatory comment was added to Rule 1.7 to clarify that the rule does not apply to a withdrawal of counsel before the Register of Wills, which should be governed by local rule or the discretion of the Register.
- Rule 2.5 was amended to require notice of the filing of an account to a co-fiduciary who does not join in the account, and to allow a party residing outside of the United States 60 days (not 20 days) within which to file objections.
- Rule 4.3 was amended to require a certificate of service for all legal papers filed under that rule.
- The term “outright beneficiary” was changed to “beneficiary” in the notice requirements of Rule 10.5(a)(1), and (a)(8) was amended to require notice to the beneficiaries of an estate or trust if the personal representative is a fiduciary of the estate or trust.
- Forms were revised to add requests for attachments, updating fill-in functions, and revising notarial language.
Orphans’ Court decree that authorized the sale of real estate was immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(6) and so the failure to appeal was a waiver of any right to a later appeal. Krasinski Estate, 40 WAP 2018 and 41 WAP 2018 (Pa. 10/31/2019), aff’g, 2018 PA Super 130 (5/15/2018) (en banc), aff’g in part, rev’g in part, vacating in part, and remanding, 5 Fid.Rep.3d 275 (Clearfield Co. O.C. 2015).
Objections sustained to claims by executor for care of decedent as contrary to Dead Man’s Act and without sufficient evidence, to claims for funeral expenses without receipts or vouchers sustained, and to attorney’s fees because time some spent in preparation of account was not substantiated. However, objection for failing to account for tangible personal property overruled due to absence of evidence of the age, condition, or value of the property, and accountant was allowed to proceed with sale of property specifically devised in order to pay debts. Estate of Alice Jones, Deceased, 239 DE of 2019 (Philadelphia O.C. 9/14/2019).
Amendments to inter vivos trust document signed by agent (one of settlor’s daughters) were invalid even though the trust document allowed amendments by agents because the power of attorney did not authorize the agent to amend the trust. The attempted appointment of co-trustees and co-agents were also invalid as contrary to the terms of the trust and the power of attorney. Finally, the actions of the agent in attempting to take advantage of her sister’s weakened mental capacities to increase her share of the trust showed a lack of integrity that justified denying her appointment as a successor trustee. M. Estelle Thomas Trust, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 275 (Bucks O.C. 2019), aff’d, 1705 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. 3/3/2020) (non-precedential).