The credible testimony of a reputable attorney who had known the decedent for many years created a presumption of the absence of undue influence. Conflicting testimony as to the health and mental state of the decedent was insufficient to establishe weakened intellect, an increase in a share of the estate by only 8% was not a substantial benefit, and the grant of a power of attorney was not a confidential relationship when the decedent continued to manage his own financial affairs and the agent only used the power to pay a bill and to pay for hospice care after the will was signed. Roche Estate, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 487 (Luzerne O.C. 2022), aff’d, 1377 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 10/27/2023).
In a challenge to a transfer of the decedent’s residence during the decedent’s lifetime that was made to the decedent’s daughter by the agents under the decedent’s power of attorney, the brother of the transferee, who was also a co-agent, was competent to testify as to the wishes of the decedent and the Dead Man’s Rule did not apply because as a beneficiary of the estate his interests were adverse to the transfer. The court concluded that the testimony of the agents was more credible than the testimony of their brother, and so found that there was no fraudulent transfer by the agents and no need for an accounting by them. Pileggi Estate, Principal, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 476 (Montgomery O.C. 2023), aff’d, 2443 EDA 2023 (Pa.Super. 7/3/2024) (non-precedential).
It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to remove the father of the incapacitated person as guardian when the father had failed to provide financial information and turn over assets to a successor guardian as ordered by the court, had been verbally aggressive and uncooperative with the son’s caregivers, and had commingled his son’s assets with his own. It was also not an abuse of discretion to deny the father’s request for a continuance when he had had three months to prepare for the hearing on his petition and the continuance would not be in the best interests of his son. In re: Estate of E.C.P., an Incapacitated Person, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 451 (Bucks O.C. 2023), on appeal, 2357 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super.)
Executor is required to reimburse estate for estate funds used to pay taxes and expenses of decedent’s business. Sale of property to decedent’s daughter for less than the value reported on the inheritance tax return was approved due to the dilapidated condition of the property and the expenses incurred by the daughter to improve the property. Payment of the family exemption to the daughter was also approved. The account of the executor as agent for the decedent during his lifetime was approved even though it showed no meaningful transactions based upon the credible testimony of the agent that he conducted no financial transactions for the decedent. Hill Estate, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 413 (Bucks O.D. 2023).
The administrator was properly removed for failing to make any effort to settle or distribute the estate for twenty-five years, for failing to keep records allowing for an account of his administration, and for co-mingling of assets. Neither the lack of any action by the beneficiaries nor the possible increase in the value of the estate excused the failures of the administrator. Frey Estate, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 405 (Luzerne O.C. 2021), aff’d, 1533 MDA 2020, 258 A.3d 553 (Pa. Super. 2021) (non-precedential).
In litigation over the compensation and expenses of trustees of a charitable trust, the Orphans’ Court denied enforcement of interrogatories by the trustees addressed to the Attorney General which requested information about admissions and the purposes of expenses because the interrogatories were overly broad and burdensome and requested information that the Attorney General did not have. 1994 Charles B. Degenstein Foundation, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 399 (Snyder O.C. 2023).
The appellant told his cousin that he planned to order a gun and ammunition to kill his stepbrother, and those statements were relayed to a physician who considered them to be credible threats and who recommended an extended commitment for treatment in accordance with § 303 of the Mental Health Procedures Act. The articulation of a specific plan to harm an identified target is sufficient to prove an act in furtherance of a threat to commit harm, and so is sufficient evidence that the appellant posed a clear and present danger of harm to others. In re: S.O., ___ A.3d ___, 2023 PA Super 31 (2023).
When objections are made to expenses claimed by an executor, the burden is on the executor to provide receipts or other evidence of the purpose and payment of the expenses, and the Orphans’ Court properly surcharged the executor for undocumented expenses, as well as the claims of the executor for “missed work,” both mileage and car rental fees, a “meal allowance,” a “commission in lieu of attorney fee” when the executor was disbarred on consent and not licensed to practice law, excessive compensation, and the costs of an unjustified number of trips to Pennsylvania from the executor’s home in Florida. Estate of Henderson, 1151 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 12/13/2023) (non-precedential).
Provisions of trust documents requiring that successor trustees that may be appointed in the future must be partners of a named law firm does not require that the trustee who is appointed and accepts the appointment must remain a partner in the named firm, and the trustee who is appointed and serving as trustee does not cease to be a trustee upon leaving the named law firm. Oberkotter Trusts (No. 1), 1 Fid.Rep.4th 385 (Montgomery O.C. 2022).
To the extent that the trust document is silent on the issue, the language of the document must be construed against the document’s drafters. Oberkotter Trusts (No. 2), 1 Fid.Rep.4th 396 (Montgomery 2023), app. discont., 797 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 9/25/2023).
The lack of any testimony from a handwriting expert, together with the “imprecise” testimony of children who were disinherited, did not amount to clear and convincing evidence of forgery, and was credibly refuted by the scrivener who testified to the preparation and execution of the will. In re: Estate of Sarah S. Hollingsworth, 575 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 2/21/2024) (non-precedential).