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 Super. 3/3/2020) (non-precedential).
Civil complaint that “touches on” validity of decedent’s will was dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and not transferred to Orphans’ Court division. Kramer, III v. Mary T. Kramer Estate (No. 1), 9 Fid.Rep.3d 272 (Lycoming C.P. 2019).
Upon reconsideration, the court transferred to the Orphans’ Court division the claim for specific performance of an alleged contract of the decedent to sell real property, which is under the mandatory jurisdiction of the Orphans’ Court under 20 Pa.C.S. § 711(13) and (17). Kramer, III v. Mary T. Kramer Estate (No. 2), 9 Fid.Rep.3d 273 (Lycoming C.P. 2019)
Court approved sale of real estate under contract with conventional mortgage contingencies despite higher offer of beneficiary because the beneficiary’s offer included more contingencies and might not be completed before a scheduled tax sale of the property. Estate of Ruth B. Heller, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 267 (Monroe O.C. 2019).
New final regulations have been filed with the Federal Register by the Internal Revenue Service providing guidance on the reporting of life insurance sales or proceeds under new IRC section 6050Y and the changes to the transfer for value rules of IRC section 101 that were made by the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” of 2017, P.L. 115-97. The regulations will be published on October 31, 2019. T.D. 9879, RIN 1545-BO49, F.R. Doc. 2019-23559.
The Supreme Court has amended the Financial Regulations of Title 204 of the Pennsylvania Code to increase filing fees by $2.00, from $17.00 to $19.00, for (among other things) petitions for grant of letters and first filings in petitions concerning adoptions, incapacitated persons’ estates, minors’ estates, and inter vivos trusts, effective immediately. “Amendment of Financial Regulations Pursuant to Act 20 of 2019, Pa.R.C.P. No. 1920.31(A)(2) and 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323; No. 523 Judicial Administration Doc.” (10/10/2019), 49 Pa.B. 6380 (10/26/2019).
Delays and what the court characterized as “poor judgment” by the trustee in responding to requests for information by the adoptive parents of the minor beneficiary of the trust were not a “serious breach of a fiduciary duty” warranting removal, but the court “strongly urged” the trustee to send the parents bank and broker statements regularly, and to promptly respond to future requests for information. Naomi Gulden Estate, 9 Fid.Rep. 256 (Lehigh Co. O.C. 2019).
The children of the decedent, as intestate heirs, might not have standing to challenge the probate of a will when there is an earlier will that has not been challenged and which provides no benefit to the children. William E. Fink Estate (No. 1), 9 Fid.Rep.3d 247 (Lycoming Co. O.C. 2019).
The court having raised the issue of standing sua sponte, and allowing the parties to brief the issue of standing, the court found that the children of the decedent who had been disinherited by an earlier will did not have a “substantial, direct, and immediate” interest in the probate of the current will. William E. Fink Estate (No. 2), 9 Fid.Rep.3d 253 (Lycoming Co. O.C. 2019).
[Note: In both opinions, the court cites Superior Court decisions for the proposition that standing is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. However, as I have noted before, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that standing is not jurisdictional and can be waived. See “Standing Is not Jurisdicational.” That does not mean that the trial court was wrong to raise the issue sua sponte, or that it was wrong in concluding that the contestants did not have standing.]
In June, the Pennsylvania legislature took a small bite out of the inheritance tax by enacting a 0% tax rate for the inheritances of minor children. (See “No Inheritance Tax on Transfers from Parents to Minors.”) The legislature may now…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
A setoff will be allowed to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund (“MCARE”) allowing it to reduce the amount of damages it owes to the estate by its share of punitive damages payable to it, because it failed to receive the payment for its share of punitive damages due to an error by the attorney for the administrator and the setoff is an appropriate way for the court to enforce its order of distribution. The attorney for the administrator should not be allowed to appeal the setoff order because she is asserting her personal interests in conflict with the interests of the administrator and has never withdrawn as attorney of record for the administrator or sought to become a party to the proceeding. Dubose, Adm. of Dubose State v. Willowcrest Nursing Home, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 232 (Philadelphia O.C. 2019).