A mother’s intention to provide additional life insurance benefits for her three daughters and not her son, who was to inherit a valuable business, failed when the additional insurance was purchased through an existing trust for the benefit of the four children and then later transferred to a new trust for the benefit of the three daughters because the trustees of the existing trust violated their fiduciary duties to the four beneficiaries of that trust when they transferred the new life insurance policies to a new trust. A constructive trust for the benefit of the son was therefore imposed on one fourth of the life insurance payable to the new trust that would have been distributed to the son if the policy had been kept in the existing trust. In re: Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust of Ruth M. Grant, 805 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 5/23/2025) (non-precedential).
Following the holding of the Superior Court confirming that the fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege did not allow a trustee to withhold documents in discovery, the Orphans’ Court held that new claims of attorney-client privilege based on exceptions to the fiduciary exception were barred by the doctrines of waiver and law of the case. Scaife Trust, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 14 (Allegheny O.C. 2024).
The Orphans’ Court did not have the power to approve by-laws or a board of directors for a nonprofit corporation operating as a church following the death of the founder and sole incorporator of the church when there were no by-laws and no previously elected board of directors. The court could also not recognize purported meetings and actions by members of the church because there were disputes over membership. The court therefore appointed a custodian to prevent the dissipation of assets, determine the membership of the church, and conduct a plebiscite of the membership to elect a board of directors and adopt by-laws. In re: St. Michael’s Cathedral Orthodox Christian Church, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 1 (Philadelphia O.C. 2024).
Under the “relation back” doctrine, a lawsuit filed on behalf of an estate by the person appointed as the executor by the decedent’s unprobated will is timely if filed before the statute of limitations has expired even though the petition for probate is not filed, and letters testamentary are not granted, until after the statute of limitations has expired. Edwards v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, ___ A.4th ___, 2025 PA Super 103 (5/13/2025).
The Orphans’ Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over a petition challenging the validity of an amendment to a trust after the trustee has filed a final account, the account has been approved by the court, the time for appeal has lapsed, and final distribution has been made, because the trust has ceased to exist. In the Matter of: Charles J. Mode, Deceased, 1796 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 5/9/2025) (non-precedential).
Carbon County has adopted two new local Orphans’ Court rules on the filing and confirmation of reports of auditors or masters:
New Local Rule 9.6 governs notice of the filing of a report of an auditor or master. “Adoption of Orphans’ Court Local Rule 9.6 Notice of Filing Report. Form of Notice. Objections; No. 25-RW-0157,” Administrative Order 12-2025 (4/25/2025), 55 Pa.B. 3221 (5/10/2025).
New Local Rule 9.7 provides for the confirmation of a report of an auditor or master. “Adoption of Orphans’ Court Local Rule 9.7 Confirmation of Report; No. 25-RW-0159,” Administrative Order 13-2025 (4/25/2025), 55 Pa.B. 3222 (5/10/2025).
These rules were to be effective May 1, 2025.
Westmoreland County has amended the fees charged by the Register of Wills and Clerk of the Orphans’ Court to include a processing fee of 2.79% for credit card transactions, effective June 1, 2025. “Addendum to Fees Charged by Register of Wills; No. 6596-0214” (4/16/2025), 55 Pa.B. 3222 (5/10/2025).
It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to award counsel fees to the decedent’s daughter-in-law when her stepchildren removed jewelry from her home and a safe deposit box without her permission or the permission of her husband (the decedent’s son) and while she was hospitalized. Although the administrators of the estate did not remove the jewelry themselves, they were involved in the removal of the jewelry and their conduct could properly be found to be obdurate and vexatious. It was also not an abuse of discretion to fail to hold an evidentiary hearing on the fee petition when the issues surrounding the removal of the jewelry had already been fully litigated. The Orphans’ Court had personal jurisdiction over the administrators even though no citation had been served upon them because they had previously filed a petition on another issue and so had consented to the jurisdiction of the court. Finally, the fee petition was timely even though it was filed before the entry of the final order for the distribution of the estate. The appeal of the appellants was therefore denied, but the Superior Court denied additional counsel fees for the appeal, finding that the issues raised on appeal did not lack a basis in law or fact and the appeal was not dilatory, obdurate, or vexatious. In re: Estate of James G. Klingensmith, 550 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 4/29/2025) (non-precedential).
A will by which a mother left her estate to two of her three children was not a product of influence when the third child failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of weakened intellect, a confidential relationship, and a substantial benefit. The Orphans’ Court applied the correct standard for weakened intellect, and its conclusion that the decedent was active and mentally competent was supported by the testimony of the disinterested lawyer who prepared the will and met with the decedent. Although one of the two brothers who were the beneficiaries of the will was the decedent’s agent under a power of attorney, the court concluded that “there is nothing to suggest that the parties did not deal on equal terms.” Finally, the decedent had left the remainder of her estate to two of her children because the third child had been able to purchase a substantial portion of the family farm at a discount under a deed signed by the decedent only a month before signing the new will. In re: Estate of Regina W. Brown, 733 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 5/1/2025) (non-precedential).
In a dispute about whether the decedent had validly conveyed a property to her daughter as joint tenants with right of survivorship, testimony about statements made by the decedent about her daughter-in-law were admissible as evidence of the decedent’s state of mind consistent with the conclusion that the decedent did not want the property to pass to her daughter-in-law under her will, a deed signed by the decedent was valid even though the deed was not correctly notarized and was not recorded within two years (see 21 P.S. § 442), and it was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to find that the testimony of the daughter was credible even though the deeds she said were signed by the decedent contained discrepancies (for which the daughter had “rational explanations”), and even though the daughter had been convicted of federal wire fraud. In re: Estate of Emma Roy, Deceased, 1564 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 4/17/2025) (non-precedential).