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 Super. 5/15/2024) (non-precedential).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 Super. 5/7/2024) (non-precedential).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).
The decedent’s former wife and her sister had lent large amounts of money to the decedent for his support, and there were written communications sufficient to show an oral contract for enforceable claims against the decedent which were not barred by the four year statute of limitations because the statute did not begin to run until a demand for payment was made. In re: Estate of Fred Gitterman, Deceased, 1647 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 4/3/2024) (non-precedential).
The Orphans’ Court awarded legal fees to an executor against a beneficiary who had impeded the executor in his attempts to recover property of the decedent in the possession of the beneficiary, but the court allowed only about ten percent of the legal fees claimed by the executor. The Superior Court found that the Orphans’ Court judge had presided over the entire dispute, and had considered all of the LaRocca factors in determining reasonable legal fees, and so found no abuse of discretion. In re: Estate of Owen Eugene Meals, Sr., 394 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 4/22/2024) (non-precedential).
A photocopy of an alleged contract between a husband and wife not to change their wills was properly ruled to be inadmissable as evidence under the “best evidence rule” of Pa.R.E. 1002 because there was a “genuine issue” as to authenticity. The burden of proof was on the proponent of the contract to prove that the contract was authentic and not on the challenger to the contract to prove forgery. In re: Estate of Kathy A. MacRae, Deceased, 549 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 4/22/2024) (non-precedential).
The 39th Judicial District, covering both Franklin and Fulton Counties, has adopted a new local O.C. Rule 14.8.1, establishing a form of guardian acknowledgement of duties and liabilities, and rescinding local rules 39-2.6 (time for filing accounts), 39-2.7 (time for filing objections), 39-14.2 (adjudication of incompetency), 39-15.1 (practice and procedure), 39-15.5.4 (involuntary termination), 39-15.5.5 (adoption), 39-15.5.8 (confirmation of consents), 39-15.5.9 (compliance with Act 101 of 2010), and 39-16 (forms). “Adoption of 39th Jud.Dist.O.C. Rule 14.8.1 and Rescission of Other Orphans’ Court Rules; Administrative Order re: AD: 20-2024,” 54 Pa.B. 2221 (4/27/2024).