Under the amended version of 20 Pa.C.S. § 2106(b), a parent may be found to have forfeited an intestate share of the estate of a child for failure to support the child even if the failure of support is not willful. Janelle Johnson, individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of N.J., a Minor, Deceased v. Neshaminy Shore Picnic Park, 217 A.3d 320, 2018 PA Super 252 (8/20/2019), aff’ng 8 Fid.Rep.3d 305 (C.P. Philadelphia Co. 2018).
The Orphans’ Court improperly excluded documentary evidence of the birth records of claimants to the estate, and could not exclude the testimony of a genealogical witness to be paid on a contingent fee for a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, but could properly exclude the testimony on common law grounds as an improper fee agreement with a fact witness, and could properly conclude that the testimony deserved little or no weight. Estate of Albert Mikeska, 2019 PA Super 249 (8/20/2019).
The Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security has proposed amendments to the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement relating to the Fund. It is stated that the majority of the amendments are “administrative in nature, or memorialize the existing practice.” “Proposed Amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement,” 49 Pa.B. 4542 (8/17/2019).
The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts has revised and republished the list of applicable authorities that restrict public access to court records. “Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania,” 49 Pa.B. 4544 (8/17/19).
The revisions do not affect the provisions for the Orphans’ Court that can be found in “Public Access Policy Compliance for Orphans’ Court Filings.”
In two separate orders, Delaware County has adopted several new local Orphans’ Court rules addressing guardianships, cemetery companies, and settlement of small estates.
“Local Orphans’ Court Rules Nos. 14.2—14.13; Guardianships; Orphans’ Court No. 497-19; Judicial Support Civil No. 17-5120” (Delaware Co. 6/21/2019), 49 Pa.B. 4107 (8/10/2019).
“Local Orphans’ Court Rules Nos. 2.5A (Related to Cemetery Companies) and 5.16A (Settlement of Small Estates); Orphans’ Court No. 497-19; Judicial Support Civil No. 17-5120” (Delaware Co. 6/21/2019), 49 Pa.B. 4105 (8/10/2019).
When a trust owns an annuity contract making annual payments, the estate of a beneficiary who dies after the annual payment date but before the distribution of the payment is entitled to the deceased beneficiary’s share of the annuity payment, but not if the death occurs before the annuity payment date. Wellard R. Guffy Estate, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 171 (Lycoming O.C. 2019).
Petition to seal proceedings to allocate settlement between wrongful death and survival actions was denied in the absence of a showing that disclosure would work a clearly defined and serious injury to the parties, who only alleged that the “substantial settlement” might encourage other claims against the defendant hospital. Providencia Barreto Lopez Estate, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 166 (Chester O.C. 2019).
The court refused to stay its review of the account of the trustees (based on in rem jurisdiction) while an action against the same trustees for tortious conduct in the administration of the trust (based on personal jurisdiction) was pending in another state. Frederick A. Stahl Trusts, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 161 (Monroe O.C. 2019).
The court exercised its discretion to summarily remove both co-administrators when both had filed pleadings to remove the other, finding that an evidentiary hearing would result in delay as well as unnecessary fees and expenses, and that the discord was not likely to end by removing only one of them. Estate of Robert Johnson, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 245, No. 62DE of 2017 (Philadelphia O.C. 7/9/2019).
It was an abuse of discretion and a denial of due process to deny a hearing on whether the contestant to a will had probable cause to challenge the validity of the will when the probate appeal was dismissed on a compulsory nonsuit following the close of the contestant’s case and the proponents of the will did not have an opportunity to present evidence. The existence of the in terrorem clause was not a defense to the will contest and did not need to be included in a new matter. Including the forfeiture issue in the new matter that was filed did not require the proponents to request a bifurcation or present evidence before moving for a nonsuit. Powell Estate, 2019 PA Super 140 (5/1/2019), vacating and remanding, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 147 (Philadelphia Co. O.C. 2018).