A person denied benefits from a municipal pension fund after a finding by a hearing board that a common law marriage was not proven, from which no appeal was made to the Court of Common Pleas, cannot later obtain a judgment in the Orphans’ Court that a common law marriage existed, and the 0% spousal inheritance tax rate applies, and then use that judgment to force payment of the benefits previously denied. In re: Estate of John F. Pancari Sr., 1304 C.D. 2016 (Pa. Cmwlth. 12/8/2017).
Legal action cannot be filed against the “estate” of a decedent, but only the personal representatives of the estate, and so an action filed against an estate is a nullity and a personal representative of the estate cannot be substituted as the defendant after the statute of limitations has expired. Wilkinson v. Knight, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 336 (Crawford Co. C.P. 2017).
The decedent and his fiance obtained a marriage license, and their marriage was valid even though the marriage ceremony was conducted by a friend who was ordained over the Internet by “First Nation Church and Ministry” and the marriage certificate was not properly filed with the Clerk of the Orphans’ Court. Zimmerman Estate, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 330 (Montgomery Co. O.C. 2017).
In accounting filed for husband’s estate, Orphans’ Court had no jurisdiction over funds previously awarded to wife as compensation for wrongful death and loss of consortium but erroneously paid to husband’s estate, and so ordered the personal representatives to file an amended account excluding those funds, after which the court may determine whether wife’s estate has standing to object to the account. Truax Estate, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 327 (Franklin Co. O.C. 2017).
Counsel fees of $25,000 were properly imposed under 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(7) and (8) on a party as sanctions for dilatory, obdurate, and vexatious conduct in continuing to pursue matters that were without merit and were previously decided. Mumma Estate, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 323 (Cumberland Co. O.C. 2017), appeal quashed, 319 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. 10/2/2017).
(For previous decisions involving this same party, see 4 Fid. Rep. 3d 384 and 6 Fid.Rep.3d 352.)
Executor commissions and legal fees paid by insolvent estate to the son of the decedent will be reduced when the legal fees were in great measure incurred to defend the estate from a claim of surcharge against the decedent who was the executor and attorney for another estate (Blackmore Estate, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 170 and 6 Fid.Rep.3d 250). Durkin Estate, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 320 (Lackawanna Co. O.C. 2017)
An agent under of a power of attorney did not have a duty to claim an elective share of the estate of a deceased spouse when the surviving spouse was entitled to a gift in trust equal to the elective share, even though the gift in trust was not an “available resource” because it would not be part of the surviving spouse’s estate for purposes of the Estate Recovery Program and the Department of Human Services would be unable to recover medical assistance provided to the surviving spouse. Bond Estate, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 313 (York Co. O.C. 2017).
The transfer of more than $6 million to a joint account with the decedent’s wife six years before the decedent’s death was not invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity and was not the product of undue influence, notwithstanding that the wife had a power of attorney and the decedent was suffering from dementia. Hill Estate, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 289 (Montgomery Co. O.C. 2017).
Although federal estate tax repeal has been a talking point for the Republican party for years, and estate tax repeal was part of the tax bill that passed the House of Representatives November 16th, the amended version of H.R. 1 that passed the Senate early on Saturday morning, December 2nd, does not repeal the estate tax.
Instead, the Senate amendment doubles the basic exclusion amount, from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 (which would be $11,210,000 in 2018 with adjustments for inflation), but only for deaths occurring (and gifts made) in years 2018 through 2025. After 2025, the exclusion amount would revert to $5,000,000 (with inflation adjustments).
This is one of a number of changes between the House and Senate versions of the bill that will have to be addressed in a conference committee (assuming that the House is not willing to simply approve the Senate version of the bill). If the conference committee is able to agree on a compromise version of the bill, then both houses would have to pass the conference committee version in order for the bill to be enacted.
Six more counties have adopted public access rules to comply with Section 7 of the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, which applies to the Clerks of the Orphans’ Courts.
“Adoption of Local Rule of Judicial Administration 510; No. 90182 of 2017, A.D.” (Lawrence Co. 11/6/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7311 (12/2/17).
“Adoption of Local Rule of Judicial Administration 510—Filing of Legal Papers with Confidential Information; 2017-J-63” (Lehigh Co. 11/8/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7312 (12/2/17).
“Administrative Order; No. 2017-3297” (Mercer Co. 11/9/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7312 (12/2/17).
“Rescission of the Public Access Policy of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania Adopted October 15, 2012, and Adoption of Phila.R.J.A. Nos. *401, *402 and *403; No. 02 of 2017” (Philadelphia Co. 11/13/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7309 (12/2/17). [These rules were later updated to reflect amendments to the statewide public access policy. See “Amendment of Phila.R.J.A. Nos. *401, *402 and *403; No. 02 of 2017” (Philadelphia Co. 5/10/2018), 48 Pa.B. 3078 (5/26/2018).]
“Adoption of Local Rule of Judicial Administration 510; No. 90182 of 2017, A.D.” (Warren and Forest Cos. 11/14/2017), 47 Pa.B. 7312 (12/2/17).