Schuylkill County has adopted new fee schedules for both the Register of Wills and the Clerk of the Orphans’ Court, effective January 1, 2025. “Administrative Order; No. 5424-0982” (11/18/2024), 54 Pa.B. 7829 (12/7/2024).
In a contract allegedly signed by the decedent for the purchase of real estate, a provision for “liquidated damages” of 50% of the contract price is unenforceable as a penalty, and a motion by the executor to dismiss an objection asserting a claim for liquidated damages was granted. A motion to dismiss another objection, asserting a claim for unpaid rent, was granted in part because the decedent had not signed the lease and the apartment was occupied by the decedent’s son and not the decedent. Mulligan Estate (No. 1), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 252 (Montgomery O.C. 2023).
[The lease claim was finally dismissed in Mulligan Estate (No. 2), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 259 (Montgomery O.C. 2023), app. pend. 1912 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.). An opinion on the imposition of counsel fees against the claimants can be found in Mulligan Estate (No. 3), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 280 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), app. pend. 1912 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.).]
Real properties were transferred from parent to two children (some of the properties passing by disclaimers) in order to avoid environmental claims, with an oral promise to retransfer to the parent upon his request. After the children failed to retransfer the properties, a claim by parent for a resulting trust was denied because the parent did not provide funds for the children to purchase the properties, any claim for a constructive arose when the parent demanded that the properties be retransferred to him and was barred by a five year statute of limitations (which was not tolled or removed by a later renewal of promises to retransfer), a claim for specific performance was barred by the statute of frauds, and a claim for unjust enrichment was barred by a four year statute of limitations. Boyko v. Boyko, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 241 (Lehigh Civ.Div. 2022), aff’d 311 A.3d 626, 107 EDA 2023 (Pa.Super. 12/29/2023), (non-precedential).
The appeal from the court’s order approving the sale of the decedent’s residence should be quashed because the appellant’s “concise statement of errors” does not specify which order is being appealed, and the “rambling” statement failed to set forth any meritorious issues. O’Brien Estate (No. 2), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 232 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), app. pend., 942 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.).
An order allowing the executor to enter the decedent’s residence is proper when the decedent’s residence was not specifically devised by her will and two of the three of the residuary beneficiaries occupy the residence, the court was not divested of jurisdiction over the administration of the estate by an appeal from the grant of letters, and the order is not appealable. O’Brien Estate (No. 1), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 223 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), app. quashed, 941 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 6/14/2024), pet. app., 389 MAL 2024 (Pa.).
When a trustee engages in an act of self-dealing by using trust assets as collateral for loans taken out for the benefit of the trustee and his family, the court may impose a surcharge based on the benefit to the trustee and his family even though there was no loss to the trust and no profit to the trustee personally. Cameron Trusts, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 205 (Bucks O.C. 2024), aff’d, 2025 PA Super 82, 830 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 4/9/2025).
An Orphans’ Court in Pennsylvania did not have jurisdiction to consider claims arising from the estate and trusts of a Florida resident when the estate and trusts were the subject of a settlement agreement in Florida that was binding upon all of the parties and was subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the Florida courts, the judgment of which is entitled to full faith and credit. Robbins Estate and Trusts, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 194 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), aff’d, 2024 WL 4117333, 673-674 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 9/9/2024) (non-precedential).
The Pa. Department of Revenue has issued a Realty Transfer Tax Bulletin explaining the exemption for real property distributed from an estate, and the bulletin provides some helpful guidance on a few issues. Realty Transfer Tax Bulletin 2024-01, “Transfers from…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
The failure of the executor to find bonds that were in joint names with one of the beneficiaries of the estate did not result in any loss to the beneficiary because the bonds had not matured and continued to accrue interest, and so surcharge of the executor was denied. The executor testified that another bond was sold during the decedent’s lifetime at the direction of the decedent and the proceeds placed in a joint bank account with the executor and, in the absence of any evidence of a contrary intent, those proceeds (and other accounts in joint names with the decedent and the executor) became the personal property of the executor at the decedent’s death. Surcharge for failing to appraise and distribute jewelry and furniture was also denied when the executor testified that she had tried to sell the items without success and the objectant failed to produce any evidence that the items had any value. Executor was surcharged for the payment from the estate of the taxes and expenses of property specifically devised, and was ordered to produce receipts for expenses for which she reimbursed herself from the estate. Counsel fees for the objectant were denied because the actions of the executor were not obdurate, arbitrary, vexatious, or dilatory. Workman Estate, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 158 (Bucks O.C. 2024).
The Supreme Court has adopted a new Pa. R.O.C.P. 10.7 implementing 20 Pa.C.S. 3908, which provides that the filing of certain affidavits with the Register of Wills has the same effect as the “finding of a court” for the purpose of allowing disclosures of certain digital assets of a decedent to the personal representative of the estate. By the same order, the Supreme Court also corrected a statutory reference in Pa.R.O.C.P. 15.10, relating to adoptions. “Order Adopting Rule 10.7 and Amending Rule 15.10 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure; No. 995 Supreme Court Rules Docket” (9/30/2024), 54 Pa.B. 6418 (10/12/2024).
[The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee had originally published a proposed rule that would have been a cross-reference to 20 Pa.C.S. § 3908, and that proposal was opposed by the Pennsylvania Bar Association. The committee reconsidered, a second proposed rule was published, and according to the adoption report of the committee there were no objections or comments to that second proposal. For additional information about digital assets and the procedures for accessing those assets, see “Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets” (7/27/2020).]
[