When the executors who were originally granted letters have resigned and an administrator has been appointed to complete the administration of the estate, and the administrator files an account that covers only his own administration and not the administration of the executors, it is not improper for a beneficiary to file a petition seeking a surcharge against one of the original executors for misconduct even after the time for filing objections to the administrator’s account has passed, and it was error for the Orphans’ Court to have dismissed the petition. In re: Estate of June Millan, 2352 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 6/27/2025), (non-precedential).
In an appeal from the probate of a 2011 will, the Orphans’ Court did not err in refusing to probate a will allegedly signed by the decedent in 2014 when the proponent of the 2014 will was able to produce only an unsigned copy that she said she had prepared and which she claimed was signed by the decedent, the 2011 will was prepared by a lawyer who later represented the decedent in other matters and never knew anything of a later will, the testimony of the proponent of the later will and the witnesses she called to testify were not found to be credible by the court, and the unsigned will included provisions that did not make sense and did not conform to what the proponent said that the decedent wanted. The journal of the notary public who alleged notarized the 2014 will included an entry with a date in 2014, the name of the decedent, and “Will,” but the court did not err in finding the journal to be unreliable because the entry was in the handwriting of the notary’s daughter and not the notary, the notary had no memory of meeting the decedent or notarizing her will, and the date of the entry was a Good Friday, when the decedent’s restaurant would have been busy and the decedent was unlikely to have left in order to sign a new will. Because there was insufficient proof that a later will was signed, the court did not need to apply possible inferences or presumptions regarding the possible destruction or suppression of the will by the principal beneficiary of the earlier will who was alleged to have been in possession of the later will. In re: Estate of Shirley Maria Cavallo, 1369 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 6/27/2025), (non-precedential).
In 2019, the Pa. Department of Revenue published in the Pa. Bulletin a table of life estate and remainder factors to be used to determine the present value of a life estate or remainder that is being transferred subject to realty transfer tax. An explanation of that table, along with a link to the table, was posted on this site as a news article in 2020. That article was revised in 2022 when a new table of factors was published.
The DOR has now published a new table, and it appears that the DOR publishes similar tables every three years. Rather than posting a new article every three years, the original news article has been revised to include a chart with links to both past and current tables of factors.
So “Pa. Realty Transfer Tax on Life Estates and Remainders” will be updated from time to time as needed to include the current table of factors. A link to that posting is now included in the “Rate Tables” drop-down menu.
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).