PBA Supports a Proposed Electronic Wills Act

On May 9, the House of Delegates of the Pa. Bar Association approved a joint recommendation of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law and Elder Law Sections to support legislation that would allow both electronic wills and electronic forms of other kinds of estate planning documents in Pennsylvania. Although the joint task force of the sections drafted legislation that was reported to the House of Delegates, no bill has yet been introduced in the legislature. The approval by the PBA of a draft of legislation nevertheless represents an important step towards the recognition of electronic wills in Pennsylvania.

The draft legislation would create a new Chapter 26, to be known as the Uniform Electronic Wills Act, and a new Chapter 40, to be known as the Uniform Electronic Estate Planning Documents Act, within the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code, Title 20 of the Pa. Consolidated Statutes, as well as make other conforming amendments to other sections of Title 20. Both chapters are adopted from uniform acts with the same names promulgated by the Uniform Law Commissioners.

Chapter 26 would include various new definitions, such as the “record” of an electronic will, and what it means to “sign” an electronic will. Unlike a will on paper that is signed with ink, which is valid if signed at the end, and does not require subscribing witnesses, the proposed formalities for an electronic will are going to require two subscribing witnesses, whose presence can be electronic and whose signatures can also be electronic. There are also provisions for making an electronic will self-proving, and for creating a certified paper copy of an electronic will.

Chapter 40 would extend similar definitions and principles to other kinds of estate planning documents, including trusts, powers of attorney, health care powers of attorney and advance health care directives, elections against wills, disclaimers and releases, and other instruments relating to those kinds of documents, but would not apply to deeds.

A more detailed summary of the draft legislation will be prepared and published if and when it is introduced into the legislature and enacted.

Nonsubscribing Witnesses Saw Decedent’s Signature, Not Mark

Although the will was not self-proving because one the subscribing witnesses did not witness the execution of the will, the Orphans’ Court found that two witnesses who observed the signing of the will through the window of the decedent’s home (but did not enter the decedent’s home because of COVID) presented credible testimony that the decedent signed the will, and so the will was properly admitted to probate. The decedent’s signature was not his customary signature, and was barely legible, but it was made without assistance and was not a “mark” requiring two subscribing witnesses. The beneficiaries of a previous will were not “indispensable parties” to the will contest and so the court had jurisdiction without notice to them. In re: Estate of Patricia Ann Rocco, Deceased, ___ A.4th ___, 2025 PA Super 120 (6/11/2025).

Forgery of Will Not Proven; No Standing to Compel Account Following Valid Disclaimer

The Orphans’ Court found the witnesses in support of the authenticity of the will to be credible, and did not find the petitioner’s allegations of forgery to be credible. The signatures in the margins of the pages of the will were not relevant because all parties agreed that the signature at the end of the will was the decedent’s. There was also clear and convincing evidence (including videographic evidence) that the petitioner understood the disclaimer he signed and intended to disclaim his interest in the estate, so that he no longer had standing to compel the filing of an account by the executor. Harm Estate (No. 1), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 81 (Bucks O.C. 2024) (memorandum opinion); Harm Estate (No. 2), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 87 (Bucks O.C. 2024) (Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion), aff’d, 1702 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 1/14/2025) (non-precedential) (see “Meritless Appeal of Denial of Forgery Claim“).

Beneficiary Substantially Complied with Requirements for Accepting Trusteeship

The trust document stated that the beneficiary of a trust “shall become a Co-Trustee of his or her respective trust” upon reaching thirty years of age. By several emails sent to the trustee already serving and to the financial institution serving as custodian of the trust, a beneficiary who had reached age thirty asserted that he was a co-trustee and attempted to exercise powers as a co-trustee. Those emails “substantially complied” with the direction in the trust document that a person designated as a trustee qualify by a “written acceptance of the office.” Because the beneficiary became a trustee when he sent those emails, the purported appointment of a new co-trustee without his consent as a trustee, and an attempted change of situs, were both invalid. John P. Middleton Trust, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 46 (Montgomery O.C. 2025).

[For earlier opinions involving the same trust, see “Appeal of Emergency Trust Distribution Not Moot Because Jurisdictional Question Remained” and “Dismissal of Answer and New Matter Is Not Appealable.” For earlier opinions involving the same settlor and beneficiary and similar issues but a different trust, see “Dismissal of Answer and New Matter for Lack of Standing Is Not Appealable.”]

Settlement Agreement Barred Contingent Claim

An agreement among the children of the decedent, entered into during their father’s lifetime, under which they released “all claims” against each other “whatsoever, at law or in equity, known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, contingent or accrued, [and] discovered or undiscovered,” barred one of the children from bringing a claim against other children following the death of their father based on a writing alleged to have been signed by the father. Yoffee Estate, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 41 (Montgomery O.C. 2025).

Unimproved Land May Be a “Park”

The Orphans’ Court erred in concluding that it was no longer “practicable” to use property that was donated to the township as a park and for recreational purposes because a park can be land kept in its natural state, and so the proposed sale of a portion of unimproved land in a flood zone was not allowed by the Pennsylvania Donated or Dedicated Property Act, 53 P.S. § 3384. In re: Blythedale Park, 332 C.D. 2020 (Pa. Cmwlth. 6/5/2025) (opinion not reported).

New Philadelphia O.C. Rules on Title to Real Estate, Discovery, and Guardianships.

Philadelphia has adopted new local Orphans’ Court rules on determining title to real estate under 20 Pa.C.S. § 3546, discovery, and the appointment of counsel for the alleged incapacitated person in guardianship proceedings. “Adoption of Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Orphans’ Court Rule 5.16B, 7.1A, and 14.4; President Judge General Court Regulation; No. 5 of 2025” (5/16/2025), 55 Pa.B. 3728 (5/31/2025).

No Action for Interference with Inheritance for Lifetime Transfers

Based upon a copy of a will alleged to have been signed before the will that was probated, the petitioners attempted to claim the proceeds of sale of real property in Turkey that was sold by the guardian of the decedent’s estate with the approval of the Turkish courts after the decedent was declared to be incapacitated in Pennsylvania. The Orphans’ Court held that (a) Pennsylvania does not allow a cause of action for interference with a right of inheritance when the alleged interference took place during the decedent’s lifetime (and a constructive trust is a remedy and not a cause of action); (b) the claims were time barred because they were made more than one year after the probate of the later will and more than 30 days after court approval of the sale of the property, to which the petitioners were not entitled to notice because they did not reside in Pennsylvania; (c) the probated will left “everything” to the named beneficiary and there is no ambiguity to be reconciled with the earlier will; and (d) there was no basis upon which to question the approval of the sale by the Turkish courts. Camlibel Estate (No. 2), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 29 (Allegheny O.C. 2025).

Trust Beneficiary Liable for Unjust Enrichment

It was a breach of trust for the trustee of a testamentary trust to transfer a residence to the beneficiary of a testamentary trust when the beneficiary was only entitled to use the property during her lifetime. Because the beneficiary failed to inquire whether the trustee was acting within her authority, she received the property subject to a constructive trust, and following her sale of the property became liable to the remainder beneficiaries for her unjust enrichment. Holmes Estate, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 24 (Philadelphia O.C. 2025).

Court Had No Jurisdiction Over Agent and Property of Florida Decedent

After previously finding that it had no jurisdiction over the administration of the estate of a decedent who had established his domicile in Florida before his death, the Orphans’ Court also found it had no jurisdiction over challenges to actions by the decedent’s agent under a durable power of attorney and that it had no jurisdiction over the disposition of New Jersey property owned by the decedent and his wife as tenants by the entireties. Milligan Trust, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 19 (Chester O.C. 2025).

For the prior decisions in this same estate, see “Decedent Had Changed Domicile to Florida.”