One of the major goals of the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act (Act of July 7, 2006, No. 98 of 2006) was to conform the laws relating to revocable trusts to the laws relating to wills and decedent’s estates. The chart below…
In a previous article, it was suggested that the new limitation on itemized deductions, reducing itemized deductions by 2/37ths of the amount by the amount by which taxable income is subject to tax at the maximum 37% rate, should not…
The refusal of the Orphans’ Court to approve a “spend-down plan” to allow the incapacitated person to qualify for Medicaid by spending principal on a burial fund and making gifts was not an abuse of discretion or an error of law because the proposed spend-down plan would neither minimize taxes nor carry out a lifetime giving pattern as required by 20 Pa.C.S. § 5536, and would not benefit the incapacitated person in any way, but only benefit the guardian as the recipient of the proposed gifts. (The Orphans’ Court also ordered that the guardian pay the counsel fees associated with the petition seeking approval of the spend-down plan, but that part of the order was not appealed.) In re: J.C.B., an Incapacitated Person, 2397 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/26/2026) (non-precedential).
The notice of audit of the executor’s account that was sent to the decedent’s grandchildren and other beneficiaries stated that objections must be filed 20 days before the audit date, but the grandchildren received a copy of the decree setting the audit date and stating that any objections must filed in accordance with Pa. R.O.C.P. 2.7. Because Rule 2.7 allows objections to be raised at audit, and the grandchildren were actually present at the audit but raised no objections and did not request an extension of time to file objections, they waived any objections to the account. In re: Estate of Maurice R. Davis Jr., 1459 EDA 2025 and 1376 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/26/2026) (non-precedential).
The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee has published proposed amendments for the appointment of guardians ad litem when there is a conflict between the legal interests and best interests of an incapacitated person. (The comments to the proposed rule explain that there may be a conflict between what the incapacitated person has a legal right to want and what may be in his or her best interests.) “Proposed Amendment of Pa.R.O.C.P. 5.5 and 14.4,” 56 Pa.B. 2974 (5/23/2025).
York County has adopted and amended numerous local Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure, including rules relating to the filing of legal papers, objections to accounts, preliminary objections, appointments of guardians for minors, settlement of actions involving a minor, access to a minor’s restricted account, discovery, motions, appeals from the register of wills, expert reports, appointment of counsel, and adoptions, all to be effective June 15, 2026. “Addition and Amendment of Local Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure; 6726-0977” (5/4/2026), 56 Pa.B. 2979 (5/23/2026).
The imposition of contempt sanctions by the Orphans’ Court for filing additional frivolous pleadings after being ordered not to was not a denial of due process even though no formal hearing was held because the litigant had notice of the order directing him to refrain from filing additional pleadings and the court granted a hearing for reconsideration of the sanctions at which the litigant had an opportunity to rebut the court’s findings regarding the contempt. In re: Toni Ruzacki, 660 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/15/2026) (non-precedential).
The Superior Court would not reweigh or redetermine the credibility of the witnesses in the guardianship proceeding, and so affirmed that the expert medical testimony provided clear and convincing evidence that the appellant had untreated schizophrenia and was unable to manage his own finances and health care. In re: Dean H. Kauffman Sr., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, 1300 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/5/2026) (non-precedential).
The Superior Court affirmed the upholding of objections of the personal representative of the estate of the deceased incapacitated person (the ward) to the account of the guardian, and the resulting surcharge of the guardian, on the following grounds:
In re: Lawrence F. Walker, 1186 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/13/2026) (non-precedential).
In the absence of a petition for guardianship or a petition in the orphans’ court to approve the actions of an agent under a power of attorney, the civil division of the court of common pleas had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the title of the record owner of property in an ejectment action despite allegations that the title had been acquired title through a power of attorney that was invalid due to the incapacity of the original owner, and the civil division was not required to refer the allegations of incapacity to the orphans’ court division. Garcia v. Myatt, 1582 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/7/2026) (non-precedential).