Conservator appointed in California did not have authority to bind his conservatee to an arbitration agreement in Pennsylvania when the conservator did not follow the procedures to transfer or register the conservatorship under the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act, 20 Pa.C.S. Ch. 59. There was also no agency relationship that would allow the conservator to bind the conservatee. McIlwain v. Saber Healthcare Group, Inc., 2019 PA Super 122.
The beneficiaries of a revocable trust have no standing to object to investments made by the trustee during the settlor’s lifetime to which the settlor consented and approved because the duties of the trustee were owed exclusively to the settlor. See 20 Pa.C.S. 7753(a). In re: Trust under Agreement of Pauline O. Walker, 2019 PA Super 120 (4/22/2019).
A pro se appellant’s statement of issues on appeal which was 32 pages long and a “discursive, argumentative, and incoherent rant” violates R.A.P. 1925(b) and should be considered to waive all issues. The appeal should also be dismissed on its merits because the appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence of lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence. Fluellen Estate, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 130, No. 540 AP of 2018 (Philadelphia O.C. 1/22/2019), aff’d, 3557 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. 12/17/2019) (non-precedential).
A beneficiary who is entitled to an annuity from a trust has standing to object to the account of the administration of the trust, to object to the division of the trust, to object to a new fee schedule for the corporate trustee, and to petition for the appointment of an individual co-trustee. In re: Augustus Trask Ashton Testamentary Trust, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 151, No. 1039 ST of 1952 (Philadelphia O.C. 2/25/2019), aff’d in part, ___ Pa. ___, ___ A.3d ___, 36 EAP 2020 (Pa. 10/4/2021), (with concurrence by Wecht, J.).
Most people know that property gets a “step-up” in its income tax basis upon the death of the owner of the property, but most people don’t know that the rules are different for federal income tax purposes and Pennsylvania income…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
The Internal Revenue Service has announced that, starting May 13, all applications for an employer identification number (EIN), whether submitted on-line or on Form SS-4, will require the name of an individual and either a Social Security number (SSN) or individual tax identification number (ITIN) for the “responsible party” of the entity for which the EIN is requested. IR-2019-58 (3/27/2019).
A “responsible party” is a person who ultimately controls or owns the entity or who exercises ultimate effective control over the entity. For estates and trusts, that would normally seem to be one of the personal representatives or trustees. (However, the instructions to Form SS-4 somewhat confusingly state that the responsible party for a trust is a “grantor, owner, or trustor,” which doesn’t seem right, especially for a testamentary trust.) For those estates or trusts for which the personal representative or trustee is a bank or trust company, the new requirement would apparently prevent the application from using the name and EIN of the corporate fiduciary, and would instead require the name and SSN of a trust officer responsible for the estate or trust.
This new requirement is intended to prevent one entity (such as a corporation or partnership) from applying for a EIN for another entity. The IRS apparently wants to be able to identify an individual responsible for the operations of the new entity, probably so that it will be easier to investigate possible frauds or evasions.
The appointment of an emergency guardian of the person or estate renders the alleged incapacitated person legally incapable of making decisions about matters expressly assigned to the guardian. Whether an emergency guardianship of the estate is still valid more than 30 days after the issuance of the order (cf. 20 Pa.C.S. § 5513) was not raised in the trial court, and could not be raised outside of the Orphans’ Court, and so would not be considered on appeal. Gavin v. Loeffelbein, 205 A.3d 1209, 74 MAP 2017 (Pa. 3/26/2019).
Nephew who would have received half of estate under unsigned amendment to the decedent’s revocable trust, but instead of half of the estate, did not have standing in malpractice action against lawyers who prepared the trust amendment under Agnew v. Ross, 152 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2017). Estate of Young v. Louis, 2018 PA Super 358 (12/31/2018)
Counsel fees of 5% of the first $100,000 of the estate and 3% of balance over $100,000 were approved, but should have been paid from residuary estate and not proceeds of sale of property that had been specifically devised. Executor’s commission of the same amount was denied due to delays in the administration of the estate and failure to comply with court orders. Surcharge imposed on the executor for interest on inheritance tax and some of the legal fees incurred by the objectant were imposed on the executor as a sanction for his contempt of court. Klingel Estate, 9 Fid.Rep.3d 51 (O.C. Monroe 2018).
(An earlier opinion confirmed other objections to the executor’s account.)
The Supreme Court has amended the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement to shorten the times for penalties after the annual due date for attorney registration.
Attorney registrations are due July 1, and a nonwaivable penalty had been imposed for registrations not received by July 31, with an additional penalty imposed on attorneys who fail to register by August 31.
Because on-line registration has made it easier for attorneys to comply with the annual registration deadline, and that attorneys are sent reminders by email, the Disciplinary Board had proposed moving up the late registration dates from July 31 to July 16, and from August 31 to August 1. See, “Proposed Amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement Relating to Annual Registration of Attorneys,” 48 Pa.B. 6784 (10/27/2018).
The Supreme Court has now adopted those changes.
“Amendment of Rule 219 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement; No. 175 Disciplinary Rules Doc.,” 49 Pa.B. 1020 (3/9/2019).