Three handwritten pages labeled “Pg 1,” “Pg 3,” and “Pg 4,” with all three paragraphs on the first page page struck through diagonally and a signature on page 4, were found to be notes of the decedent, and not a will, when the pages were found with other unsigned pages with later dates that refer to an earlier (1999) will and there was extrinsic evidence that the decedent had told her lawyer she did not want to make changes to her 1999 will. Estate of Helen C. Citino, Deceased, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 11 (Chester O.C. 2018).
A ninety year old woman suffering from dementia was unable to change her domicile, so her estate was not subject to inheritance tax even though her son had moved her from New York to an assisted living facility in Pennsylvania before her death. Opinion by Office of Chief Counsel, Department of Revenue, INH-05-002, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 8 (5/6/2005) (reissued 5/6/2010).
A similar opinion with similar facts, is INH-06-003, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 10 (10/10/2006).
Civil Division had concomitant jurisdiction with Orphans’ Court over life insurance proceeds that were the subject of a property settlement agreement following the divorce of the decedent and his former spouse, and had the power to impose damages on the former spouse for breach of contract even though the life insurance was subject to ERISA pre-emption. Harmon v. Harmon, 10 Fid.Rep.3d 22 (Lycoming C.D. 2019), aff’d, 1574 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. 3/27/2020) (non-precedential).
Not allowing a litigious beneficiary any oral argument after the late filing of an unconvincing brief is not grounds for recusal. Robert M. Mumma Estate, 10 Fid.Rep.3d 18 (Cumberland O.C. 2019), app. quashed, 1326 MDA 2019 (5/11/2020) (non-precedential).
Evidence that the decedent ended contacts with friends, stopped speaking to his son, moved to the Poconos, and remarried is not sufficient proof of undue influence by his second wife, lack of testamentary capacity, or fraud in the inducement, and the testimony of the lawyer who prepared the will, and who testified to the capacity of the of the decedent, was entitled to great weight. James F. Shepley Estate, 10 Fid.Rep.3d 1 (Monroe O.C. 2019), aff’d, 3211 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. 2/19/2021) (non-precedential).
A trust with a remainder payable to a named charity will not violate the rule against perpetuities even though the current beneficiaries were not lives in being when the trust was created, and so the early termination of the trust will violate a material purpose of the trust and will not be approved under 20 Pa.C.S. § 7740.1(b) even with the consent of all parties. John A. Quigley Testamentary Trust, 10 Fid.Rep.3d 111, No. 374ST of 1935 (Philadelphia O.C. 2/18/2020).
Note: 20 Pa.C.S. § 7740.1 applies to “noncharitable” trusts, and 20 Pa.C.S. § 7703 defines “charitable trust” as a “trust, or portion of a trust, created for a charitable purpose described in section 7735(a) (relating to charitable purposes; enforcement – UTC 405)” (emphasis added). 20 Pa.C.S. § 7740.3, on the modification or termination of charitable trusts, refers to the possibility of a charitable trust having noncharitable beneficaries, so it appears that a trust with both charitable and noncharitable beneficiaries should be governed by § 7740.3 and not § 7740.1.
When there is a transfer of a residence or other real estate with a retained life estate (which is usually not recommended, because it does not avoid any inheritance tax and can restrict the ability of the transferor to sell the property during his or her lifetime), the retained life estate is not subject to tax but the remainder interest may be taxable if the transfer is not to a spouse, child, or other family member to whom transfers are exempt. See Example 3 of 61 Pa. Code § 91.165 and 61 Pa.Code § 91.193(b)(6).
When the remainder is taxable, the taxable value is usually determined by multiplying the value of the entire property by an actuarial factor, based on a current interest rate and the age of the life tenant. When a remainder is retained and a life estate is transferred that is taxable, the value of the life estate is determined by multiplying the value of the property by a life estate factor.
The Pa. Department of Revenue is required to periodically publish notice of the life estate and remainder factors to be used in valuing life estates and remainders for realty transfer tax purposes, using the table of factors published by the Internal Revenue Service for an interest rate that is the average of the rates published by the IRS for the previous 36 months.
The following chart summarizes the interest rates and mortality tables that have been published since 2019, with citations (and links) to the tables of factors that have been published in the Pa. Bulletin.
| Effective Date | Interest Rate | Mortality Table | Pa. Bulletin |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7/1/2019 | 2.6% | 2000CM | 49 Pa.B. 3023 |
| 7/1/2022 | 1.4% | 2000CM | 52 Pa.B. 5877 |
| 7/1/2023 | 4.8% | 2010CM | 55 Pa.B. 4467 (6/28/2025) |
[Note on Revisions: An earlier version of this article was originally published on 2/7/2020, but it was rewritten on 6/27/2025 to present a summary of both new and past tables of factors in the form of a chart.]
Although a nonprofit corporation formed as a volunteer fire company had been decertified and could no longer fight fires in accordance with its original charitable purposes, the Attorney General could not enforce the application of cy pres in the absence of a showing as to what assets of the corporation were “donated, granted, or devised” from an outside source “in trust.” In re: Independent Fire Co. No. 1, No. 1489 C.D. 2018 (Cmwlth Ct. 2/5/2020), aff’g on other grounds, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 20 (Lycoming Co. O.C. 2018).
The New York State Bar Association has released an ethics opinion stating that a lawyer may not dispose of wills even when the testators’ locations and circumstances are unknown, and that the lawyer must safeguard the wills indefinitely unless the law provides an alternative. New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 1182 (1/23/2020).
A few comments:
- The opinion discusses the possibility of filing wills with the Surrogate’s Court, which is allowed by statute in New York. There is no comparable statute in Pennsylvania, and there is no authority requiring (or allowing) a Register of Wills to accept a will when the testator might be living, might have died outside of Pennsylvania, and might have revoked the will by a later will.
- The opinion relies on Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15, which relates to safeguarding property. But is the “property” the physical will or the testamentary intent expressed in the will? At a recent southeast Pennsylvania regional meeting of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, a fellow of the college reported that her firm, after repeated attempts to contact the testator, and after a suitable period of time, will destroy the testator’s will but will also create a contemporaneous record of the destruction of the will so that a copy of the will (saved electronically) could be admitted to probate in the unlikely event that the will was ever actually needed.
[DBE (7/21/2024): This article has not yet been updated to reflect the final regulations published at 89 F.R. 58886 (7/19/2024)., the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (Division T of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, P.L. 117-328), or Notice 2023-54, 2023-31 I.R.B….
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here