The Orphans’ Court approved the modification of a testamentary trust for the benefit of the settlor’s son in order to allow distributions of principal for the medical expenses and support of the settlor’s son, the court finding that the settlor could not have anticipated that his son would live to age 99, or the advances in medical care and the resulting costs of that care that would occur in the 55 years after the settlor’s death, or that the trust created by the settlor’s wife would be exhausted by distributions for the support of their son. O’Neill Trust fbo Hugh O’Neill, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 330 (Montgomery O.C. 2023), on appeal, 1787 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super.)
The Orphans’ Court approved the termination of life sustaining treatment for the alleged incapacitated person (AIP) at the request of the daughter of the AIP and over the objections of the son of the AIP based on testimony of several doctors, including a doctor consulted by counsel appointed for the AIP, that the AIP had suffered severe brain damage, was in a permanent comatose state, and would continue to decline physically due to lack of activity. The court found that the AIP’s Catholic faith was not determinative, that the son’s testimony that his mother would want medical treatment if she were “knocked out” was not a credible indication of her wishes, and that the substituted judgment standard required the conclusion that the AIP would choose to reject life-sustaining determine under these circumstances. In re: Estate of F.K., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 316 (Bucks O.C. 2023), aff’d 1415 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 8/22/2023) (non-precedential), pet. for app. den., 452 MAL 2023 (Pa. 10/4/2023).
Decree allowing eviction of a beneficiary in possession of the residence which is the major asset of the estate, and the sale of which is necessary for the administration of the estate, is not an appealable order because it is not a final order settling the estate and it is not one of the orders appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342. Capobianco Estate, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 311 (Philadelphia O.C. 2019), app. dism’d, 2537 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. 11/13/2019).
[DBE Note: Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(6) allows an appeal from an order “determining an interest in real or personal property,” and an appeal might be allowed because the Orphans’ Court had determined that the appellant had no interest in the property allowing him to remain in possession. However, the appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to file the docketing statement required by Pa.R.A.P. 3517.]
The decedent’s note was silent on how interest was to be calculated, and the court would not consider extrinsic evidence in the form of amortization schedules, so the interest on the unpaid principal was to be calculated as simple interest and not compound interest, resulting in a debt of $63,174.30 and not $1,318,488.22. Dembosky Estate, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 267 (Lackawanna O.C. 2022), aff’d, 571 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 6/15/2023) (non-precedential).
The document offered as a codicil to the decedent’s will was allegedly signed by the decedent in the hospital two days before her death and was denied probate by the Register of Wills. Based on the contents of the document and the notes of testimony before the Register (the submission of which the parties agreed), the court affirmed the decision of the Register because the document made no reference to the will it was supposed to modify and was totally inconsistent with the scheme of the will. The court also noted that the document did not expressly provide for dispositions of property upon the death of the decedent. An affidavit of the proponent of the codicil offering notes of the decedent and explanations for the codicil were excluded under the Dead Man’s Rule. Hogan Estate, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 271 (Montgomery O.C. 2023), on appeal (Pa. Super.).
The petition filed by a daughter challenging the gifts made to the other daughter four years before the mother was adjudicated incapacitated was denied because: (a) The lawyer who had represented and advised the incapacitated person (IP) in 2011 and 2012 testified credibly that she showed no lack of memory or lack of mental capacity, and that she was not unduly influenced by anyone, when she signed a new will disinheriting the one daughter, and then later giving four properties to her other daughter because of concerns that the disinherited daughter would challenge the will. (b) The disinherited daughter had no standing to challenge the transfer of the four properties by her mother during her mother’s lifetime. (c) Although the IP had signed a power of attorney in favor of the daughter to whom she made the gifts, the document remained in the possession of the lawyer and there was no other evidence of a confidential relationship between the IP and that daughter. (d) The disinherited daughter had filed two petitions challenging the gifts before her mother was adjudicated incapacitated in 2016, but withdrew the petitions and then petitioned again to void the gifts four years later, but laches applied because the daughter receiving the gifts had changed her financial position in reliance on the gifts. (e) Medical records are admissible for the facts in the records but not the medical opinions in them, and the court would not take judicial notice of drug information found on the Internet as evidence of the purpose for which the IP was prescribed a drug. In re: L.G., an Incapacitated Person, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 280 (Chester O.C. 2022), aff’d 331 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 7/14/2022) (no opinion).
The decision of a Mental Health Hearing Officer for an involuntary commitment for treatment for 20 days was affirmed based on information in medical records that was read into evidence and which fell within the regular records exception to the hearsay rule. That information showed a clear and present danger that the patient intended to commit suicide. In re: P.T., 1 Fid.Rep.4th 304 (Allegheny O.C. 2023), on appeal, 191 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super.).
The compensation of the trustees of a revocable trust following the death of the settlor was found to be reasonable, objection to valuation of rare musical instruments was overruled because the actual values could only be determined by sales of the instruments, and surcharge was denied for failure to obtain the 5% discount for payment of inheritance tax within three months of death. Removal of trustees was denied because of lack of evidence that the trustees did not administer the trust as a prudent person would, and the delay in the sale of musical instruments was excused by the pandemic. Munroe Trust, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 259 (Montgomery O.C. 2023).
Applying Florida law, the court denied motions: (a) to order distribution of the entire trust even though the beneficiary had reached the age of 35 and had exercised his right to withdraw the balance of the trust, and instead allowed the trustee to retain a reserve of $85,000, because there were objections to the accounts of the trustee still to be adjudicated and the expenses of the trustee had not yet been determined, (b) to compel the trustee to return funds because there was insufficient evidence of a breach of trust by the trustee, but the denial was without prejudice pending further findings by a master, and (c) to impose sanctions on the trustee for violating orders of the court because there was no evidence that the trustee had acted in bad faith. Harrison Trust, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 244 (Bucks O.C. 2023), on appeal, 1784 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super.)
[For an earlier opinion in this same case, see “Trustee Cannot Deny Withdrawals by Beneficiary with ADHD,” summarizing Harrison Trust, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 116 (Bucks O.C. 2021) (trust governed by Florida law), aff’d 635 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 1/4/2022) (non-precedential).]
The successor trustee of a New York trust created by New York residents was entitled to a writ of possession for real estate transferred to the trust by the settlors during their lifetimes when the daughter of the settlors who was in possession of the property had no lease and no right of occupancy under the trust document, even though she had occupied the property with the consent of the settlors during their lifetimes. The validity and interpretation of the trust, and whether the costs of maintaining the property while it was occupied by the daughter following the deaths of the settlors should be paid from the daughter’s share of the trust, were issues to be decided by New York Courts under New York law. Grief, Trustee v. Cambria, 1 Fid.Rep.4th 234 (Monroe O.C. 2023).