Under an agreement with the two shareholders of a corporation, the corporation was obligated to purchase shares upon the death of a shareholder for a fixed price, and the corporation purchased life insurance on the shareholders in order to have the cash needed to pay the purchase price. Upon the death of the majority shareholder, the life insurance proceeds were included in the value of the corporation’s shares for federal estate tax purposes, and the obligation of the corporation to purchase the shares was not a debt that reduced the value of the shares. Connelly v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, No. 23-146 (6/6/2024).
The Orphans’ Court did not abuse its discretion to remove the incapacitated person’s father as guardian of his person when the father had breached his fiduciary duties by comingling funds, failed to comply with court orders by failing to provide financial records to the new guardian of the estate, and did not prioritize his son’s best interests when his son expressed wishes different from his father’s, and it was not an abuse of discretion to remove the father summarily and appoint the agency that has been serving as the guardian of the estate as the guardian of the person. In re: Estate of C.E.P., an Incapacitated Person, 2357 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 6/4/2024) (non-precedential).
A failure to give notice to an indispensible party deprives a court of jurisdiction, but the other heirs of the estate were not indispensible parties to an action to remove an administrator of an estate because the other heirs had renounced their rights to serve as personal representatives, and so the failure to give them notice did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. In re: Estate of Dorothy A. Anderson, ___ A.3d ___, 2024 PA Super 117 (Pa. Super. 6/5/2024).
[DBE Comment: This opinion may muddle the difference between the power to remove a personal representative, which lies in the Orphans’ Court, and the power to appoint a successor personal representative, which lies with the Register of Wills.]
The decedent’s former spouse was not a co-owner as a tenant in common, and had no ownership interests in the residence that had been purchased by the decedent and the spouse during their marriage, because they had divorced and their settlement agreement provided that the residence was to be transferred to the decedent by the spouse even though the transfer was never made. The refinancing of the mortgage on the property by the decedent was not a modification or novation of the agreement even though the spouse signed the mortgage because the decedent was the only one personally liable for the mortgage note. In re: Estate of Richard A. Martin, Deceased, 963 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 5/21/2024), (non-precedential).
The executor of the decedent’s estate brought an action in the Orphans’ Court to recover the value of property alleged to have belonged to the decedent from a person who had lived with the decedent, but the court properly granted summary judgment when the executor was unable to produce any evidence of the identity, nature, or value of the property alleged to have been taken by the respondent even after discovery against the respondent. Marvin Samuels, Deceased, 2491 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 5/21/2024), (non-precedential).
The intervenors were initially allowed to join in the litigation only for the purpose of determining whether the person with whom they had reached a settlement agreement was validly serving as the trustee of the trust, and it was an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to deny them expanded intervention when the litigation now includes disputes over both the ownership of the rights purchased by the intervenors and the distribution of the funds that were paid to the trust by the intervenors, which the intervenors might now claim if the trust did not own the rights that the intervenors purchased. In re: Dille Family Trust, 1326 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential).
[For other decisions involving this trust, see “Choice of Law for Administration of Trust,” summarizing 96 WDA 2022 and 97 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 9/19/2023) (non-precedential), “Contempt Affirmed over Situs Dispute,” summarizing 853 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 9/11/2023) (non-precedential), and “Situs of Trust Was Not Effectively Changed by Beneficiaries,” summarizing 26 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential).]
The attempt by the beneficiaries to change the situs of a trust which was the subject of litigation was properly disregarded by the Orphans’ Court, even though the trust document specifically allowed the beneficiaries to change the situs, because under 20 Pa.C.S. § 7705(b)(13) the power of the court to “exercise jurisdiction as may be necessary in the interests of justice” prevails over the trust document when the beneficiaries were attempting to transfer the situs to a state that had previously held it did not have jurisdiction over the trust (and would not have jurisdiction over the trustee), making court supervision of the trust impossible, and because the beneficiaries acted with “unclean hands.” In re: Dille Family Trust, 26 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential).
[For previous decisions involving the situs and trusteeship of this trust, see “Choice of Law for Administration of Trust,” summarizing 96 WDA 2022 and 97 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 9/19/2023) (non-precedential), and “Contempt Affirmed over Situs Dispute,” summarizing 853 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 9/11/2023) (non-precedential). Another later opinion involving this trust is “Denial of Expanded Intervention Was Abuse of Discretion,” summarizing 1326 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential).]
The death of the trustee during the appeal of her removal made the appeal moot. The order of the court prohibiting other persons from transferring or dissipating assets was an injunction issued sua sponte and was an abuse of discretion in the absence of findings on any of the six factors required for a preliminary injunction. In re: Trust Agreement of James Castelli dated October 9, 1985, 155 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential).
Washington County has adopted a new local rule for electronic filing in the Orphans’ Court. “Approval and Adoption of Local Rule of Orphans’ Court Procedure L-O.C. 4.7; No. 2024-1” (5/3/2024), 54 Pa.B. 2768 (5/18/2024).
It was reversible error for the Orphans’ Court to adopt the report of the auditor of the account of the guardian of the estate of the decedent without first giving the parties notice of the filing of the report, as required by Pa.R.O.C.P. 9.6. Even though there was no local rule for giving notice or filing objections to the account, the parties still had the right to notice and the right to file objections or exceptions to the report. In re: Lawrence F. Walker, 1141 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 5/15/2024) (non-precedential).