In an action by a lawyer for the collection from an estate of contingent fees owed by the heirs for representation in a will contest, the heirs had standing to appeal from the decisions of the Orphans’ Court but the administrators of the estate did not because there was no surcharge against them and so they were not adversely affected by the decisions of the court. An agreement for a contingent fee of “40% of any judgment” was interpreted to mean 40% of the net value of the estate passing to the heirs, and not 40% of the gross inventory value of the assets of the estate, and additional fees for appellate work was not allowed because the agreement allowed for additional compensation for an appeal by the heirs of an unsuccessful result but did not allow any additional compensation for an appeal by the opposing parties after a successful result for the heirs. In re: Estate of John J. Thomas, Deceased, 1297 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 10/24/2024) (non-precedential).
The Orphans’ Court had jurisdiction in a dispute over a provision in a will directing that the testator’s wife “remain on the payroll” of a corporation he controlled, and the dispute did not become moot by reason of the wife’s death during the litigation, but the direction was unenforceable because the gifts of the testator’s stock in the corporation were unconditional and so the direction was precatory, and because a shareholder cannot dictate the policies of a corporation by will. In re: Estate of Kenneth C. Haugh, Deceased, 163 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 11/4/2024) (non-precedential).
It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to sustain objections to a notice of intention to issue a subpoena when the subpoena would be issued after the deadline for discovery had passed, and it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude expert medical testimony on the issue of weakened intellect when the expert did not examine the decedent and had formed an opinion based on medical records from three months after the decedent had executed the contested will. It was not an error for the Orphans’ Court to grant a nonsuit a will contest when the attorney who had prepared the contested will testified that the decedent did not appear to be under any undue influence and the court considered the testimony credible even though the attorney had been convicted of wire fraud and obstruction of justice and had been disbarred, when the contestant’s only evidence of the decedent’s alleged weakened intellect was her own testimony that his diary entries included misspelled words and bad grammar, and when there was a lack of clear evidence of a confidential relationship between the decedent and his girlfriend who benefitted from the contested will. In re: Estate of Joseph Tecce, Deceased, 2953 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 11/18/2024) (non-precedential), aff’g 2 Fid.Rep.4th 354 (Delaware O.C. 2024).
The issuance of two checks by the decedent payable to himself and endorsed in blank was insufficient to establish gifts to the depositor of the checks when there was no evidence of the relationship between the decedent and the depositor, no evidence as to the delivery of the checks, and no evidence of donative intent, and a constructive trust was imposed on the balance of the funds remaining after the depositor had used some of the funds to pay for the decedent’s household expenses and home health care. In re: Estate of Joseph M. Marchione, Deceased, 566 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 11/18/2024) (non-precedential).
An historical society which had donated artifacts to a museum with rights to notice of any sale of the artifacts, a share of any proceeds of sale of any artifact, and an acknowledgement of its former ownership, did not have standing to intervene in a petition to deviate from the organizational documents of the museum in order to change its management because the society had no “substantial, direct, and immediate” contractual interest that was affected by the deviation, was not a named beneficiary of the museum, and had no “special interest” in the museum separate from its contractual rights. In re: Atwater Kent Museum, ___ A.3d ___, 1042 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmwlth. 12/19/2024).
The decision of the trustee to allocate some principal to income in accordance with 20 Pa.C.S. § 8104 in order to provide the income beneficiary with 3.2% of the three year average of the value of the trust principal was not an abuse of discretion by the trustee when the trustee had invested trust assets under a long term growth strategy and the value of the principal of the trust had increased without similar increases in income. Kline Estate, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 339 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), app. pend., 637 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.).
An agreement to settle litigation is governed by principles of contract law, and an oral agreement among multiple parties may be enforced by the court even though the parties intend to later reduce the contract to writing. The Orphans’ Court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement of a malpractice action in the Civil Division that is related to proceedings in the Orphans’ Court and part of the global settlement of the parties. Kane Trust, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 323 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), app. quashed, 557 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 7/19/2024).
The Superior Court had previously held that the decedent’s revocable trust was ambiguous and had remanded the case for the consideration of extrinsic evidence of the decedent’s intent, and so reversed the Orphans’ Court when it disregarded the evidence that was presented and again ruled in favor of the decedent’s nephew and against the decedent’s niece, finding that the Orphans’ Court disregarded the “law of the case” and that its decision was unsupported by the record. The Superior Court found that the prior wills of the decedent had been for the benefit of the niece, and that those wills, together with credible testimony of a statement by the decedent shortly before his death that he intended to benefit his niece, confirmed that the ambiguity in the revocable trust should be resolved in favor of the niece. In re: Donald Bany Revocable Living Trust, 1276 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 12/17/2025) (non-precedential).
By an order dated December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court has amended Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure 1.8, 2.4, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, and 14.14, rescinded and replaced Form G-01 (citation and notice of guardianship petition), rescinded Forms G-02, G-03, and G-05, and amended the Index to the Appendix of Orphans’ Court Forms, all of which are effective immediately. “In re: Order Amending Rules 1.8, 2.4, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, and 14.14 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure, Rescinding and Replacing Form G-01, Rescinding Forms G-02, G-03, and G-05, and Amending the Index to the Appendix of Orphans’ Court Forms; No. 1001 Rules Docket” (12/18/2024), 55 Pa.B. 7 (1/4/2025).
According to the Adoption Report of the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee, these updates to procedural rules and forms in guardianship proceedings were made to conform to changes made by the Act of December 14, 2023, P.L. 446, No. 61, which included guardianship reforms in the areas of certification of guardians, mandatory appointment of counsel, consideration of less restrictive alternatives before appointing a guardian, and scheduling review hearings within one year if there may be a change in capacity.
The amendments to the rules are based on proposals published in March 2024. See “Proposed Amendments to Guardianship Rules.”
← Previous Year | Current Year | Following Year →
HTML Version Copyright 2018-2025 Daniel B. Evans. All rights reserved.
— Short Term Rates for 2024 —
| Month | Annual | Semiann. | Quarterly | Monthly |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan. | 5.00% | 4.94% | 4.91% | 4.89% |
| Feb. | 4.68% | 4.63% | 4.60% | 4.59% |
| March | 4.71% | 4.66% | 4.63% | 4.62% |
| April | 4.89% | 4.83% | 4.80% | 4.78% |
| May | 4.97% | 4.91% | 4.88% | 4.86% |
| June | 5.12% | 5.06% | 5.03% | 5.01% |
| July | 5.06% | 5.00% | 4.97% | 4.95% |
| Aug. | 4.95% | 4.89% | 4.86% | 4.84% |
| Sept. | 4.57% | 4.52% | 4.49% | 4.48% |
| Oct. | 4.21% | 4.17% | 4.15% | 4.13% |
| Nov. | 4.00% | 3.96% | 3.94% | 3.93% |
| Dec. | 4.30% | 4.25% | 4.23% | 4.21% |
— Mid Term Rates for 2024 —
| Month | Annual | Semiann. | Quarterly | Monthly |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan. | 4.37% | 4.32% | 4.30% | 4.28% |
| Feb. | 3.98% | 3.94% | 3.92% | 3.91% |
| March | 4.13% | 4.09% | 4.07% | 4.06% |
| April | 4.30% | 4.25% | 4.23% | 4.21% |
| May | 4.42% | 4.37% | 4.35% | 4.33% |
| June | 4.66% | 4.61% | 4.58% | 4.57% |
| July | 4.49% | 4.44% | 4.42% | 4.40% |
| Aug. | 4.34% | 4.29% | 4.27% | 4.25% |
| Sept. | 4.02% | 3.98% | 3.96% | 3.95% |
| Oct. | 3.70% | 3.67% | 3.65% | 3.64% |
| Nov. | 3.70% | 3.67% | 3.65% | 3.64% |
| Dec. | 4.18% | 4.14% | 4.12% | 4.10% |
— Long Term Rates for 2024 —
| Month | Annual | Semiann. | Quarterly | Monthly |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan. | 4.54% | 4.49% | 4.47% | 4.45% |
| Feb. | 4.18% | 4.14% | 4.12% | 4.10% |
| March | 4.40% | 4.35% | 4.33% | 4.31% |
| April | 4.45% | 4.40% | 4.38% | 4.36% |
| May | 4.55% | 4.50% | 4.47% | 4.46% |
| June | 4.79% | 4.73% | 4.70% | 4.68% |
| July | 4.61% | 4.56% | 4.53% | 4.52% |
| Aug. | 4.52% | 4.47% | 4.45% | 4.43% |
| Sept. | 4.37% | 4.32% | 4.30% | 4.28% |
| Oct. | 4.10% | 4.06% | 4.04% | 4.03% |
| Nov. | 4.15% | 4.11% | 4.09% | 4.08% |
| Dec. | 4.53% | 4.48% | 4.46% | 4.44% |