Inheritance tax payment that was mailed three months after death, but not postmarked until two days later, was not timely and not eligible for 5% discount. DiCristofaro Estate, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 203 (O.C. Chester Co. 4/25/2016).
Animals are not “persons” within the meaning of § 2116(a)(2) of the Inheritance and Estate Tax Act, 72 P.S. § 9116(a)(2), and so a “honorary trust” (see 20 Pa.C.S. § 7738) established for the benefit of horses is not subject to inheritance tax. Schrock Estate, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 199 (O.C. Westmoreland Co. 9/31/2015).
Husband of decedent was allowed to disinter and reinter the remains of his deceased wife over the objections of the executor of her estate, but only if a wrongful death action was not filed within the statute of limitations or, if filed, the husband successfully defends himself against the wrongful death action. Douma v. Aiello, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 189 (C.P. Franklin Co. 9/21/2012), aff’d 60 A.3d 563, No. 1837 MDA 2011 (Pa. Super. 2012) (no published opinion).
After termination of parental rights, child is still the “issue” of the biological parent for purposes of determining the beneficiaries of a trust, but will cease to be a beneficiary once adopted; no reformation or division of trust in order to preserve the child’s interests after adoption. Stevens Estate, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 185 (O.C. Cumberland Co. 2/24/2016).
Plaintiff in divorce action may file for discontinuance after death of spouse and before commencement of trial regardless of whether grounds for divorce have been established, and so have her rights in the estate determined under the Probate, Estates and Fiduciary Code instead of the Divorce Code, but the post-nuptial agreement entered into after the divorce action began is still enforceable according to its terms. Easterday Estate, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 178 (O.C. Montgomery Co. 3/22/2016), aff’d on other grounds, 171 A.3d 911, 2017 PA Super 315 (10/3/17), 15 MAP 2018 and 16 MAP 2018 (Pa. 6/18/2019).
(See the later reports on the decision of the Superior Court and the decision of the Supreme Court.)
Note: It is no longer possible to discontinue a divorce action once grounds for divorce are established, so the result in Easterday, which was affirmed by the Superior Court on other grounds, cannot be replicated. See Pa.R.Civ.Proc. 1920.17(a) and (d), as amended by “In re: Order Amending Rules 1920.17, 1920.31, 1920.33, 1920.42, 1920.54, 1920.55-2, 1920.71, 1920.71 and 1920.75 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure,” Civil Procedural Rules Docket No. 622 (5/6/2015), 45 Pa.B. 2457 (5/23/2015), The order includes a note that the holding of the Superior Court decision relied upon in Easterday, Tosi v. Kizis, 85 A.3d 585 (Pa. Super. 2014), is superseded by the amendment of the rules.
The court determined the spouse’s elective share rights in real property owned by the decedent and another person as joint tenants with right of survivorship, in joint bank accounts, and a fixed annuity contract held in a joint investment account, and the amount of a set-off for sale of the marital residence during the decedent’s lifetime. Sabbatino Estate, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 158 (O.C. Monroe Co. 3/15/2016).
Executor fee of $283,443.24 (2.45%) out of estate of $11.5 million, consisting almost entirely of cash, stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, was approved because of the quality of work performed in liquidating assets and administering the estate. Naugle Estate, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 149 (O.C. Franklin Co. 3/16/2016).
Orphans’ Court is unable to rule on objections to the $120,000 in fees paid to deceased lawyer-executor in the absence of evidence of time spent, services rendered, or hourly rates; son (also a lawyer) who had attempted to complete the administration of the estate ordered to submit a memordandum explaining and illustrating the work that was done to support the fees. Blackmore Estate, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 170 (O.C. Lackawanna Co. 3/8/2016).
(For later opinion imposing surcharge for excessive fees, see Blackmore Estate, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 250 (O.C. Lackawanna Co. 3/15/2016).)
Orphans’ Court has power under 20 Pa.C.S. § 5536(b) to approve changes to an incapacitated person’s will or trusts that would disinherit persons currently included as beneficiaries. Navarra Estate, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 368 (O.C. Lawrence Co. 4/29/2016).
(For the later decision in which the court did approve a change to the incapaciated person’s will, see 7 Fid.Rep.3d 39.)
Trial courts have discretion in the management of cases before them, and orders allowing interim distributions, and attempting to provide a procedure to deal with objections to deposition questions and to try to discourage an obdurate litigant from attempting to relitigate issues that had already been decided in 30 years of litigation, were not abuses of discretion and were interlocutory orders that are not appealable. Mumma Estate, 6 Fid.Rep.3d 352 (O.C. Cumberland Co. 6/14/2016), appeal quashed, No. 730 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. 2/13/2017).