House Bill 18, which makes a number of changes to 20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.2(a.1) relating to the scheduling and conduct of review hearings for guardianships, has passed both houses of the legislature and been signed into law by the governor, becoming the Act of October 27, 2025, No. 39.
The act takes effect in 60 days.
A sale of real property that had been specifically devised was approved when the estate was otherwise without sufficient funds to pay debts and expenses, and the offer made by the devisee was “woefully inadequate” compared to the price under the contract already signed by the executor. The court was not required to hold a hearing on the removal of the executor before approving the sale when the request to remove the executor came in an answer to the petition for approval of the sale and not in a separate petition. Pstrak Estate, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 116 (Luzerne O.C. 2022), aff’d 936 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 4/17/2024) (non-precedential).
[DBE Comment: The Superior Court stated that the joinder of the specific devisees of the property was not required because the will included a general power to sell property “without excepting specifically devised property,” but that conclusion seems to violate the principle of construction that a specific provision overrides a general provision. A provision of a will making a specific disposition of a specific property should therefore override a general direction that that executor is able to sell property and that general direction does not expressly override specific gifts of property. It is also not clear what “joinder” means in this context because the opinion of the Orphans’ Court stated that a citation was served on all parties to show cause why the petition to allow the sale should not be granted, and the objecting devisee was in fact a party to the proceeding.]
It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to deny a petition for counsel fees from the petitioners and guardians of the alleged incapacitated person when there was no evidence presented as to the ability of the estate of the AIP to pay the fees, the requested fees included time spent on disputes between the petitioners over which of them should be the guardian, and the requested fees included time spent on petitioning for the fees. In re: M.A.D., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 95 (Berks O.C. 2025), on appeal, 191 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super.).
It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to deny two post-hearing motions that sought to add documents to the record, and to request a new evaluation of the incapacitated person, when the issues being addressed by the motions were known before the hearing and further delays were not in the best interests of the incapacitated person. Other issues were found to be waived or without merit, and the Superior Court refused to rely on a non-precedential decision issued before May 1, 2019, the effective date of Pa. R.A.P. 126(b) which allows reliance on persuasive non-precedential opinion. In re: Cody Zedak, and Incapacitated Person, 112 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 10/23/2025).
Lease signed by agent for trustees as owners of the property was invalid because the power of attorney did not have the notice required by 20 Pa.C.S. § 5601(c) or the acknowledgement of the agent required by 20 Pa.C.S. § 5601(d). The immunity provision of 20 Pa.C.S. § 5608(d) was not relevant because at issue was the validity of an option under a lease and there was no liability being asserted against the agent or the parties dealing the agent. Motee v. Bazzanza, Trustee, 395 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 10/15/2025) (non-precedential).
The petitioner alleged that the decedent had entered into a contract with her husband not to change their wills, but the lawyer who was alleged to have written the contract had no record or recollection of preparing the contract, the testimony of the petitioner that the lawyer admitted preparing the contract was not credible, the contract did not appear to have been written by a lawyer, the notary who allegedly took the acknowledgments of the decedent and her husband was not called to testify, and the petitioner produced only a photocopy of the alleged contract, so the petitioner failed to meet her burden of production and burden of persuasion and the alleged contract was not admissible under the “best evidence” rule of Pa. R.E. 1003. MacRae Estate (No. 1), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 123 (Berks O.C. 2023) (decision and order); MacRae Estate (No. 2), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 135 (Berks O.C. 2023) (Pa. R.A.P. 1925 opinion), aff’d, 549 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 4/22/2024) (non-precedential).
Lehigh County has published a new schedule of fees for the Register of Wills. “Clerk of Judicial Records—Register of Wills Division Fee Schedule; Case No. 2025-J-0110” (9/18/2025), 55 Pa.B. 7237 (10/18/2025).
The Internal Revenue Service has released Rev. Proc. 2025-32, 2025-44 I.R.B. ____ (10/27/2025), with inflation adjustments for 2026 (sooner that inflation adjustments are usually published), and the significant federal estate tax and trust planning numbers previously published were correct. Those numbers are as follows:
Not included in the above list is the federal estate tax base applicable exclusion amount (and generation-skipping tax exemption), because it was changed to $15,000,000 for deaths and gifts in 2026 by section 70106 of P.L. 119-21 (the “megabill” formerly known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill”). It had been $13,990,000 for 2025, and will not be adjusted for inflation until 2027.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has issued an “exemptive relief order” delaying the effective date of the residential real estate transaction reporting regulations (31 C.F.R. § 1031.320 et seq.) to March 1, 2026. “Exemptive Relief Order to Delay the Effective Date of the Residential Real Estate Rule” (9/30/2025), ___ F.R. ___ (______).
The trustees of a trust for the lifetime benefit of the decedent made discretionary distributions to the decedent for which the decedent signed agreements indemnifying the trustees. Following the death of the decedent, the remainder beneficiaries sued the trustees, and the decedent’s estate assumed the costs of defending the trustees. The Orphans’ Court had held that the settlement payments by the estate to the trust remaindermen were not deductible debts of the estate under section 2129(b) of the Inheritance and Estate Tax Act (72 P.S. § 7129(b)) because one of the trustees who was indemnified was also the counsel to the decedent and had a confidential relationship with the decedent, resulting in multiple conflicts of interest (e.g., that trustee signed some of the agreements both as agent for the decedent and as an indemnified trustee), and so the indemnification agreements were not “bona fide” agreements. The Commonwealth Court held that the estate had the burden of showing that the indemnification agreements were “fair under the circumstances and beyond the reach of suspicion” and failed to make that showing. It was also not an error or abuse of discretion by the Orphans’ Court to conclude that the trust litigation expenses were not deductible by the estate because the litigation did not involve the estate and did not benefit the estate even though the court had approved the payment of the expenses from the estate. Estate of Richard M. Scaife v. Commonwealth, ___ A.4th ___, 88 CD 2024 (Pa. Cmwlth. 9/23/2025), aff’g in part, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 61 (Westmoreland O.C. 2023).