York County has adopted a new rule on required reports by county agencies in adoption proceedings. “Adoption of Local Rule of Orphans’ Court Procedure 15.5; 6725-1167” (York Co. 6/10/2025), 55 Pa.B. 4333 (6/28/2025).
An heir who was occupying real estate at the death of the decedent with the consent of the decedent is not entitled to a hearing before being ordered to vacate the property and deliver possession to the administrator, and the Orphans’ Court did not err in ordering the heir to vacate the property on the basis of the pleadings, when the property was the primary asset of the estate, five years had elapsed since the decedent’s death, the administrator had advanced funds to pay real estate taxes and insurance premiums, and it was clear that the sale of the property was necessary to the administration of the estate. The Orphans’ Court also did not err in ordering the same heir to return funds to the estate that had escheated to the Commonwealth and had been claimed and received by the heir because the administrator attached a copy of a bank statement to his petition showing that the decedent was the sole owner of the account. The Orphans’ Court did not abuse its discretion in failing to address claims by the heir about a later will and the propriety of the appointment of the administrator because those claims were raised in a new matter to the administrator’s petition instead of an appeal from the Register of Wills. Estate of Ethelene Scott Hatcher, 2046 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 6/24/2025) (non-precedential).
On May 9, the House of Delegates of the Pa. Bar Association approved a joint recommendation of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law and Elder Law Sections to support legislation that would allow both electronic wills and electronic forms of other kinds of estate planning documents in Pennsylvania. Although the joint task force of the sections drafted legislation that was reported to the House of Delegates, no bill has yet been introduced in the legislature. The approval by the PBA of a draft of legislation nevertheless represents an important step towards the recognition of electronic wills in Pennsylvania.
The draft legislation would create a new Chapter 26, to be known as the Uniform Electronic Wills Act, and a new Chapter 40, to be known as the Uniform Electronic Estate Planning Documents Act, within the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code, Title 20 of the Pa. Consolidated Statutes, as well as make other conforming amendments to other sections of Title 20. Both chapters are adopted from uniform acts with the same names promulgated by the Uniform Law Commissioners.
Chapter 26 would include various new definitions, such as the “record” of an electronic will, and what it means to “sign” an electronic will. Unlike a will on paper that is signed with ink, which is valid if signed at the end, and does not require subscribing witnesses, the proposed formalities for an electronic will are going to require two subscribing witnesses, whose presence can be electronic and whose signatures can also be electronic. There are also provisions for making an electronic will self-proving, and for creating a certified paper copy of an electronic will.
Chapter 40 would extend similar definitions and principles to other kinds of estate planning documents, including trusts, powers of attorney, health care powers of attorney and advance health care directives, elections against wills, disclaimers and releases, and other instruments relating to those kinds of documents, but would not apply to deeds.
A more detailed summary of the draft legislation will be prepared and published if and when it is introduced into the legislature and enacted.
Although the will was not self-proving because one the subscribing witnesses did not witness the execution of the will, the Orphans’ Court found that two witnesses who observed the signing of the will through the window of the decedent’s home (but did not enter the decedent’s home because of COVID) presented credible testimony that the decedent signed the will, and so the will was properly admitted to probate. The decedent’s signature was not his customary signature, and was barely legible, but it was made without assistance and was not a “mark” requiring two subscribing witnesses. The beneficiaries of a previous will were not “indispensable parties” to the will contest and so the court had jurisdiction without notice to them. In re: Estate of Patricia Ann Rocco, Deceased, ___ A.4th ___, 2025 PA Super 120 (6/11/2025).
The Orphans’ Court found the witnesses in support of the authenticity of the will to be credible, and did not find the petitioner’s allegations of forgery to be credible. The signatures in the margins of the pages of the will were not relevant because all parties agreed that the signature at the end of the will was the decedent’s. There was also clear and convincing evidence (including videographic evidence) that the petitioner understood the disclaimer he signed and intended to disclaim his interest in the estate, so that he no longer had standing to compel the filing of an account by the executor. Harm Estate (No. 1), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 81 (Bucks O.C. 2024) (memorandum opinion); Harm Estate (No. 2), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 87 (Bucks O.C. 2024) (Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion), aff’d, 1702 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 1/14/2025) (non-precedential) (see “Meritless Appeal of Denial of Forgery Claim“).
The trust document stated that the beneficiary of a trust “shall become a Co-Trustee of his or her respective trust” upon reaching thirty years of age. By several emails sent to the trustee already serving and to the financial institution serving as custodian of the trust, a beneficiary who had reached age thirty asserted that he was a co-trustee and attempted to exercise powers as a co-trustee. Those emails “substantially complied” with the direction in the trust document that a person designated as a trustee qualify by a “written acceptance of the office.” Because the beneficiary became a trustee when he sent those emails, the purported appointment of a new co-trustee without his consent as a trustee, and an attempted change of situs, were both invalid. John P. Middleton Trust, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 46 (Montgomery O.C. 2025).
[For earlier opinions involving the same trust, see “Appeal of Emergency Trust Distribution Not Moot Because Jurisdictional Question Remained” and “Dismissal of Answer and New Matter Is Not Appealable.” For earlier opinions involving the same settlor and beneficiary and similar issues but a different trust, see “Dismissal of Answer and New Matter for Lack of Standing Is Not Appealable.”]
An agreement among the children of the decedent, entered into during their father’s lifetime, under which they released “all claims” against each other “whatsoever, at law or in equity, known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, contingent or accrued, [and] discovered or undiscovered,” barred one of the children from bringing a claim against other children following the death of their father based on a writing alleged to have been signed by the father. Yoffee Estate, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 41 (Montgomery O.C. 2025).
The Orphans’ Court erred in concluding that it was no longer “practicable” to use property that was donated to the township as a park and for recreational purposes because a park can be land kept in its natural state, and so the proposed sale of a portion of unimproved land in a flood zone was not allowed by the Pennsylvania Donated or Dedicated Property Act, 53 P.S. § 3384. In re: Blythedale Park, 332 C.D. 2020 (Pa. Cmwlth. 6/5/2025) (opinion not reported).
Philadelphia has adopted new local Orphans’ Court rules on determining title to real estate under 20 Pa.C.S. § 3546, discovery, and the appointment of counsel for the alleged incapacitated person in guardianship proceedings. “Adoption of Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Orphans’ Court Rule 5.16B, 7.1A, and 14.4; President Judge General Court Regulation; No. 5 of 2025” (5/16/2025), 55 Pa.B. 3728 (5/31/2025).
Based upon a copy of a will alleged to have been signed before the will that was probated, the petitioners attempted to claim the proceeds of sale of real property in Turkey that was sold by the guardian of the decedent’s estate with the approval of the Turkish courts after the decedent was declared to be incapacitated in Pennsylvania. The Orphans’ Court held that (a) Pennsylvania does not allow a cause of action for interference with a right of inheritance when the alleged interference took place during the decedent’s lifetime (and a constructive trust is a remedy and not a cause of action); (b) the claims were time barred because they were made more than one year after the probate of the later will and more than 30 days after court approval of the sale of the property, to which the petitioners were not entitled to notice because they did not reside in Pennsylvania; (c) the probated will left “everything” to the named beneficiary and there is no ambiguity to be reconciled with the earlier will; and (d) there was no basis upon which to question the approval of the sale by the Turkish courts. Camlibel Estate (No. 2), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 29 (Allegheny O.C. 2025).