A photocopy of an alleged contract between a husband and wife not to change their wills was properly ruled to be inadmissable as evidence under the “best evidence rule” of Pa.R.E. 1002 because there was a “genuine issue” as to authenticity. The burden of proof was on the proponent of the contract to prove that the contract was authentic and not on the challenger to the contract to prove forgery. In re: Estate of Kathy A. MacRae, Deceased, 549 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 4/22/2024) (non-precedential).
The 39th Judicial District, covering both Franklin and Fulton Counties, has adopted a new local O.C. Rule 14.8.1, establishing a form of guardian acknowledgement of duties and liabilities, and rescinding local rules 39-2.6 (time for filing accounts), 39-2.7 (time for filing objections), 39-14.2 (adjudication of incompetency), 39-15.1 (practice and procedure), 39-15.5.4 (involuntary termination), 39-15.5.5 (adoption), 39-15.5.8 (confirmation of consents), 39-15.5.9 (compliance with Act 101 of 2010), and 39-16 (forms). “Adoption of 39th Jud.Dist.O.C. Rule 14.8.1 and Rescission of Other Orphans’ Court Rules; Administrative Order re: AD: 20-2024,” 54 Pa.B. 2221 (4/27/2024).
An action for divorce did not automatically abate upon the death of one spouse because grounds for divorce had been established. The trial court properly allowed a petition for abatement under 20 Pa.C.S. § 3375 because it was not a waiver of the right to petition for abatement for the surviving spouse to wait for almost two years before filing a petition for abatement and it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to find that the delay in obtaining letters of administration for the estate of the deceased spouse was not reasonably explained. Schmitt v. Schmitt, 424 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 4/25/2024) (non-precedential).
The Orphans’ Court properly concluded that there were no less restrictive alternatives for an alleged incapacitated person, and that a plenary guardian of his person and estate were necessary, when the alleged incapacitated person was shown to be suffering from “hallucinations, paranoid schizophrenia, diffuse cognitive dysfunction, psychotic disorder, and acute metabolic,” had no available family, friends, or other supports to help him make decisions, and had complicated health issues which he lacked the ability to comprehend and evaluate. In re: Estate of D.W., an Incapacitated Person, 1805 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 2/27/2024) (non-precedential).
The nephews of the incapacitated person had no standing to challenge the counsel fees and commissions claimed by the guardian of the estate when their father (the incapacitated person’s brother) was still living and their only interest in the incapacitated person’s estate was their understanding that the incapacitated person intended to make them beneficiaries under his will. In re: G.A.T., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, 146 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 3/11/2024) (non-precedential).
The claims by the beneficiaries of a trust against the trustee and others for fraud and conversion concerned the administration of the trust, and so were all within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Orphans’ Court, which has all of the powers of a court of Common Pleas and has nonmandatory jurisdiction to decide claims involving third parties and actions other than breaches of fiduciary duties. However, the remedy for the erroneous filing in the Civil Division was not dismissal the complaint but the transfer of the complaint to the Orphans’ Court division. Williams et al. v. Geer at al., 128 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 3/18/2024) (non-precedential).
[For other decisions involving this same trust, see “Contempt Affirmed over Situs Dispute” and “Choice of Law for Administration of Trust.”]
When the court order settling a wrongful death action directs the payment of the proceeds to settlement “to the Administratrix on behalf of the Estate,” the funds were part of the estate and were to be distributed in accordance with the laws of intestacy, and the administratrix was properly surcharged for half of the proceeds when she paid all of the proceeds to herself instead of only half. In re: Estate of Charles L. Small, Deceased, 3171 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 3/25/2024) (non-precedential).
[Note: The Supreme Court had earlier held that the father had not forfeited his intestate share, and so the father and mother (the administratrix) were entitled to intestate shares of one half each. See “Adult Decedent Was Not a ‘Dependent Child’.”]
An appeal of an order directing emergency distributions from a trust to preserve licenses for seats for the Los Angeles Lakers did not become moot after the trustee made the distributions because the trustee had raised a jurisdictional issue that still needed to be resolved. The individual trustee had appointed a corporate co-trustee in South Dakota and the two trustees had executed documents transferring the situs of the trust to South Dakota, and so claimed that the Pennsylvania courts no longer had jurisdiction over the trust. The beneficiary was entitled to become a co-trustee at age 30 and alleged that he accepted the trusteeship before the corporate co-trustee was appointed and that his consent was necessary for a valid appointment. That factual dispute had to be resolved before the Orphans’ Court could determine whether Pennsylvania law continued to govern the administration of the trust. Trust of John S. Middleton, ___ A.3d. ___, 2024 PA Super 53 (3/25/2024). (For a summary of another opinion on another issue involving this same trust, see “Dismissal of Answer and New Matter Is Not Appealable.”)
[Note: The opinion distinguishes between the law governing the construction or interpretation of the trust and the law governing the administration of the trust.]
Appeals were quashed of two orders which (1) overruled preliminary objections to two petitions seeking to void two amendments to a revocable trust, (2) denied motions for judgment on the pleadings, (3) denied a motion for production of electronic information, (4) denied a motion to quash a party’s subpoenas to a law firm, and (5) granted a petition to join in the petition previously filed, because the orders were not final orders or otherwise appealable. Because the arguments of the appellants were frivolous, a previous appeal by the same appellants had been quashed for the same reasons, and a concurring opinion had warned the appellants’ counsel of the “potential for disciplinary action,” sanctions were imposed. In re: Shirley Weinberg Revocable Trust Dated January 27, 2011, 88 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 3/27/2024) (non-precedential).
The decedent’s granddaughter, who was not a beneficiary under the contested will and was not an intestate heir because her mother (the decedent’s daughter) was still living, had standing to challenge the will offered for probate by her mother because her mother had conveyed some of the decedent’s property to her after the decedent’s death and before the contested will was offered for probate, and the granddaughter’s rights in the property would be affected whether the mother was disinherited by the contested will. It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to find that the contested will was a forgery based on telephonic testimony from a publisher of electronic forms that the contested will appeared to be a form that was not published until after the decedent’s death. Other issues raised by the appellants were waived because the appellants failed to obtain a transcript of the relevant hearing. In re: Estate of Marjorie Virginia Renninger, Deceased, 588 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 3/29/2024) (non-precedential).