A petition to probate a later will, which gave the petitioner an interest in the decedent’s home, was not moot even though the decedent had conveyed the home to another of her children nine months before her death, because the probate of the later will would give the petitioner the right to challenge the lifetime conveyance of the property. In re: Estate of Beverly Coyne, Deceased, 994 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 3/7/2024) (non-precedential).
The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee has proposed amendments to Pa. Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, and 14.9 in order to carry out changes to guardianship practice that were made by the Act of December 14, 2023, P.L. 446, No. 61 (”Act 61”), which will be effective June 11, 2024.
Act 61 made reforms in the mandatory appointment of counsel, certification of guardians, consideration of less restrictive alternatives before the appointment of a guardian, and scheduling review hearings when there may be a change in capacity. While these changes were largely self-executing, the committee believed amendments to the procedural rules were warranted.
Comments to the proposed rules should be submitted by email (which is preferred) or regular mail by May 1, 2024.
“Proposed Amendment of Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, and 14.9,” 54 Pa.B. 1654 (3/30/2024).
In an action relating to the account of a trustee of an irrrevocable trust and the approval of a settlement agreement, the order of the Orphans’ Court sustaining preliminary objections to an answer and new matter filed by the settlor of the trust, finding that the settlor had no standing, was not a final order and was not otherwise appealable. In re: Trust of John S. Middleton dated July 26, 1996, ___ A.3d ___, 2024 PA Super 54 (3/25/2024), quashing appeal from 12 Fid.Rep.3d 543 (Montgomery O.C. 2022) (see “Settlor Lacked Standing in Litigation over Trusts” and “Dismissal of Answer and New Matter Is Not Appealable“).
The Register of Wills had jurisdiction to probate the will of a decedent who was not a resident of Pennsylvania because the decedent owned real estate in the Register’s county, but a contestant to a will lacks standing when an earlier will disinherits the contestant and the contestant fails to allege facts showing that the earlier will is also invalid. Ponns Estate, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 30 (Delaware R.W. 2023).
The beneficiaries failed to prove that the executor stole from the estate, wasted or mismanaged the estate, or did anything else that would justify removal. The evidence showed that the decedent was a “hoarder” and his house was full of items that were broken or unusable, and that the executor worked diligently to dispose of the junk in the house and perform the repairs necessary to sell the house. The executor also did not allow animosity with the beneficiaries to adversely affect the administration of the estate. A stay of the administration of the estate is not appropriate because delays would cost the estate, but a stay relating to the executor’s interests in joint accounts with the decedent was imposed until those issues can be adjudicated. Kamus Estate, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 19 (Luzerne O.C. 2023), aff’d 77 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 12/8/2023) (non-precedential).
The decedent’s surviving spouse was denied letters of administration, which were granted instead to one of the decedent’s children, when the primary asset of the estate is a residence which the spouse is occupying without payment of rent, there is a danger that the estate is insolvent because of municipal tax liens and other debts, the spouse has little experience in financial matters and has had some personal financial issues, there is some antagonism between the spouse and the decedent’s children, and one of the decedent’s children is highly qualified to administer the estate. Guy Estate, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 13 (Beaver O.C. 2022), app. disc., 736 WDA 2022 (10/19/2022).
Objections filed by the individual beneficiary of two charitable remainder unitrusts to the administration and investments of the trusts, and the legal fees paid by the trusts, were overruled after a hearing on the objections, and so the trustee is now entitled to reasonable attorney fees for defending the administration and investments of the trusts, but not attorney fees for defending the legal fees incurred. The court was satisfied that the attorneys for the trustee separated their time defending the trustee from the time defending the legal fees, but reduced the fees from 25% of the value of the trusts to 15% of the value of the trusts. Chadwick Trusts Nos. 6 and 7, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 4 (Montgomery O.C. 2022).
[For other cases denying legal fees of a fiduciary to defend legal fees, see “Non-Reimbursable Legal Fees of Fiduciaries.”]
In an action relating to the appointment of a trustee and change of situs of an irrevocable trust, the order of the Orphans’ Court sustaining preliminary objections to an answer and new matter filed by the settlor of the trust, finding that the settlor had no standing, was not a final order and was not otherwise appealable. Trust of John S. Middleton, 2449 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 3/21/2024) (non-precedential), quashing appeal from 12 Fid.Rep.3d 543 (Montgomery O.C. 2022) (see “Settlor Lacked Standing in Litigation over Trust“).
[3/26/2024 Note: The original version of this summary failed to identify which of two similar actions were the subject of the appeal. For a published Superior Court opinion addressing the same issues with the same settlor, but a different trust, see “Dismissal of Answer and New Matter for Lack of Standing Was Not Appealable“.]
The appointment of a co-guardian for an incapacitated person was affirmed on appeal despite potential conflicts of interest of the co-guardian when the counsel for the appellants failed to appear at the hearing before the Orphans’ Court and failed to make any objections to the proposed appointment, and the incapacitated person was represented by counsel and consented to the appointment. In re: G.A.T., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, 962 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 3/21/2024) (non-precedential).
The intent of the settlor to create a perpetual charitable trust, and not make an outright charitable gift, is protected by the “high standard” of 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7740.3(e) and the Orphans’ Court acted within its discretion in denying termination even though the trustee fees were almost 28% of the annual distributions to the charitable beneficiary but the fees were reasonable and at market rates. In re: Trust B Under Agreement of Richard H. Wells dated September 28, 1956, ___ A.3d ___, 5 WAP 2023 (Pa. 3/21/2024) (concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Mundy), aff’g, ___ A.3d ___, 2022 PA Super 154 (9/7/2022) (see “Trustee Fees Did Not Warrant Termination of Charitable Trust“).
[The original version of this summary had the wrong date for the Supreme Court decision and failed to provide a link to the opinion of Justice Mundy.]