The executor of the decedent’s estate brought an action in the Orphans’ Court to recover the value of property alleged to have belonged to the decedent from a person who had lived with the decedent, but the court properly granted summary judgment when the executor was unable to produce any evidence of the identity, nature, or value of the property alleged to have been taken by the respondent even after discovery against the respondent. Marvin Samuels, Deceased, 2491 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 5/21/2024), (non-precedential).
The intervenors were initially allowed to join in the litigation only for the purpose of determining whether the person with whom they had reached a settlement agreement was validly serving as the trustee of the trust, and it was an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to deny them expanded intervention when the litigation now includes disputes over both the ownership of the rights purchased by the intervenors and the distribution of the funds that were paid to the trust by the intervenors, which the intervenors might now claim if the trust did not own the rights that the intervenors purchased. In re: Dille Family Trust, 1326 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential).
[For other decisions involving this trust, see “Choice of Law for Administration of Trust,” summarizing 96 WDA 2022 and 97 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 9/19/2023) (non-precedential), “Contempt Affirmed over Situs Dispute,” summarizing 853 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 9/11/2023) (non-precedential), and “Situs of Trust Was Not Effectively Changed by Beneficiaries,” summarizing 26 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential).]
The attempt by the beneficiaries to change the situs of a trust which was the subject of litigation was properly disregarded by the Orphans’ Court, even though the trust document specifically allowed the beneficiaries to change the situs, because under 20 Pa.C.S. § 7705(b)(13) the power of the court to “exercise jurisdiction as may be necessary in the interests of justice” prevails over the trust document when the beneficiaries were attempting to transfer the situs to a state that had previously held it did not have jurisdiction over the trust (and would not have jurisdiction over the trustee), making court supervision of the trust impossible, and because the beneficiaries acted with “unclean hands.” In re: Dille Family Trust, 26 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential).
[For previous decisions involving the situs and trusteeship of this trust, see “Choice of Law for Administration of Trust,” summarizing 96 WDA 2022 and 97 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 9/19/2023) (non-precedential), and “Contempt Affirmed over Situs Dispute,” summarizing 853 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 9/11/2023) (non-precedential). Another later opinion involving this trust is “Denial of Expanded Intervention Was Abuse of Discretion,” summarizing 1326 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential).]
The death of the trustee during the appeal of her removal made the appeal moot. The order of the court prohibiting other persons from transferring or dissipating assets was an injunction issued sua sponte and was an abuse of discretion in the absence of findings on any of the six factors required for a preliminary injunction. In re: Trust Agreement of James Castelli dated October 9, 1985, 155 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 5/16/2024) (non-precedential).
Washington County has adopted a new local rule for electronic filing in the Orphans’ Court. “Approval and Adoption of Local Rule of Orphans’ Court Procedure L-O.C. 4.7; No. 2024-1” (5/3/2024), 54 Pa.B. 2768 (5/18/2024).
It was reversible error for the Orphans’ Court to adopt the report of the auditor of the account of the guardian of the estate of the decedent without first giving the parties notice of the filing of the report, as required by Pa.R.O.C.P. 9.6. Even though there was no local rule for giving notice or filing objections to the account, the parties still had the right to notice and the right to file objections or exceptions to the report. In re: Lawrence F. Walker, 1141 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 5/15/2024) (non-precedential).
The power of the decedent’s agent to “engage in banking and financial transactions” included the power to liquidate certificates of deposit that were “Totten trusts” with beneficiary designations in favor of the appellant, and the appellant failed to adequately develop the argument that the liquidation and transfer of the funds into an account in the name of the decedent without any beneficiary designation was a violation of 20 Pa.C.S. § 5601.3, so the decree of the Orphans’ Court denying the claims of the appellant was affirmed. In re: Estate of Willard Charles Gritser, Deceased, 741 WEA 2023 (Pa. Super. 5/7/2024) (non-precedential).
The Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association has published Formal Opinion 511 (5/8/2024), which concludes that ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 (on confidentiality) prohibits a lawyer from posting questions or comments on a “listserv” (an automated email list for sharing information and discussions among lawyers) without the client’s informed consent, even if the question or comment is hypothetical or abstract, if there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the question or comment would lead to the disclosure of information about the identity of the client or the client’s situation.
DBE Comment: The opinion states that a lawyer may not disclose even publicly available information, such as transcripts of proceedings. This leads to the somewhat paradoxical conclusion that the likelihood of disclosing client information is higher, and so the likelihood of violating Rule 1.6 is higher, when that information is already part of a public record.
For example, if a lawyer posts a question on an email list about a litigation matter, it may be possible to search public records for active cases in which the lawyer has entered an appearance and so figure out the client’s identity. Furthermore, the combination of public pleadings and the information in the lawyer’s question would provide greater insights into the identifiable client’s situation. By contrast, an abstract question about an estate planning issue related to a living client might be impossible link to any particular client through any publicly available information.
However, because of the uncertainties of determining the “reasonable likelihood” of disclosing client information, it would seem to be best practice not to raise any questions relating to a particular client without the client’s informed consent.
There are several court opinions holding that the assets held in a Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA) account are subject to federal estate tax upon the death of the donor when the donor is serving as the custodian for…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
The Supreme Court has amended Pa.R.O.C.P. 5.50, “Settlement of Small Estates by Petition,” to accommodate situations in which the original will has been lodged with the Register or a copy of a will is being admitted to probate, and situations in which it is not yet possible to file an inheritance tax return or pay the full amount of inheritance tax. The rule has also been amended to specify the manner of service of notice of the petition. The amendment is effective on July 1, 2024. “Order Amending Rule 5.50 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure,” No. 895 S.C. Rules Doc. (5/2/2024), 54 Pa.B. 2735 (5/18/2024) (report of the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee is included with the order).