The current beneficiary and individual cotrustee of a trust holding a partial interest in a family farm, had petitioned the Orphans’ Court to allow him to file a partition action without the consent or joinder of the institutional cotrustee. The court had denied the petition without prejudice and the Superior Court affirmed, concluding that the beneficiaries of other trusts with interests in the farm had standing to contest the petition both because they would be adversely affected by a partition and because they were vested future beneficiaries of the petitioner’s trust, that the sale of the farm was contrary to the intentions of the settlors, that the farm produced enough income to pay for its maintenance and the partition was not in the long-term best interests of the current and future beneficiaries of the trust (which the court must consider under 20 Pa.C.S.A. 7763(a.1), that the institutional cotrustee serving as a trustee of other trusts holding interests in the farm was not a conflict of interest, that the current beneficiary did not have an unqualified right to force a partition as a co-tenant, and that the denial without prejudice was not error because it was speculative to assert that circumstances were not likely to change in the future. In re: That Portion of the Ward Family Trust for the Benefit of Michael Edward Ward, 1241 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 7/30/2024).
An extension of an involuntary commitment under section 303 of the Mental Health Procedures Act, 50 Pa.C.S. 7303, requires clear and convincing evidence that the person is a danger to herself and others. The commitment order is not moot and is appealable even though the patient is no longer in custody because the sufficiency of evidence for a temporary commitment is a legal question that is “capable of repetition and yet apt to evade review.” In this case, the testimony of the doctor showed only “the mere presence of mental illness” and insufficient facts to prove a danger of self-harm. In re: J.G., ___ A.3d ____, 2024 PA Super 173 (8/8/2024).
A judgment declaring a power of attorney to be invalid and ordering the purported agent to return property to the estate of the decedent is a final appealable order, but the appeal will be dismissed when the record on appeal fails to include a transcript of the hearing which produced the testimony which is the subject of the appeal. David Paul Washinsky, Executor of the Estate of Paul Washinsky v. Thomas Nicholas Washinsky, 468 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 8/6/2024) (non-precedential).
Husband filed for divorce and died after grounds for divorce were established, so equitable division of marital property was determined in accordance with the Divorce Code. The husband had initiated the divorce proceedings and participated in the proceedings for nearly three years without any question raised about his mental competency, which was only questioned after grounds for divorce were established. A guardian for the husband was appointed, and his guardian represented the husband’s interests even though she was never a named party to the proceedings, so the divorce proceedings did not need to be dismissed and the equitable distribution award will not be set aside. Other issues raised on appeal were deemed to have been waived. DiLucente v. DiLucente, 1138 WDA 2023 and 1139 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 7/30/2024) (non-precedential).
The Orphans’ Court denied the objections to the executor’s account based upon the testimony of the executor which the court found to be credible, and the court did not find the testimony of the objectant and the objectant’s son to be credible. The court’s factual findings and credibility determinations were supported by the record and will not be disturbed on appeal. The objectant argued that account statements were “missing” that were needed to determine “where the missing money went” while the executor served as the decedent’s agent, but the objectant failed to raise any discovery issues and so failed to meet her burden of proof. In re: Estate of Aileen Minnock, Deceased, 1386 WDA 2023 (7/30/2024) (non-precedential).
The Orphans’ Court properly entered a judgment on the pleadings denying a petition to change the beneficiaries of the decedent’s individual retirement account (IRA) when the decedent did not comply with the change of beneficiary procedures required by the custodian of the IRA and the petition relied instead upon a note found after the decedent’s death that was written on the back of an envelope, which the court found was inconsistent with her prior emails to the custodian and was too ambiguous to support a finding that the decedent had done all she reasonably could to comply with the custodian’s procedures to change the beneficiaries. Estate of Carol D. Stanley, 1424 WDA 2023 (8/5/2024) (non-precedential).
The Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure have been amended to define “Orphans’ Court appeal,” provide a new rule for determining the date on which Orphans’ Court orders have been entered, and require that the notice of appeal from the Orphans’ Court include a statement that the appeal is an Orphans’ Court appeal. “Order Amending Rules 102, 108, and 904 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure; No. 312 Appellate Procedural Rules Docket” (7/26/2024), 54 Pa.B. 5079 (8/10/2024).
The appointment of a “guardian ad litem” to manage the financial affairs and make medical decisions for the alleged incapacitated person was vacated when three years had elapsed from the initial petition, there was no record of any notice to the alleged incapacitated person, and there was no finding of incapacity, because the appointment was not authorized by 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 5511 or 5513 or by the rules of court for the appointment of guardians ad litem. Estate of J.L.C., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, 2024 PA Super 151, ___ A.3d ___ (7/22/2024).
It was proper for the Orphans’ Court to approve the sale of the decedent’s residence to a third party for $150,000 rather than allow the heir who occupied the property to purchase her half of the property in monthly installments of $1,000 because the sale to the third party would provide cash to the estate that would allow the administrator “to alleviate the ongoing expenses of the residence, to settle the debts of the estate, to pay the inheritance tax, and to make appropriate distribution of the remaining balance of the estate funds to the heirs, all within a reasonable time.” In re: Estate of Constance Grace Patterson, 1173 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 7/22/2024) (non-precedential), aff’g 3 Fid.Rep.4th 216 (Washington O.C. 2023).
The Internal Revenue Service has published final regulations to address some of the changes to the required minimum distribution rules under the amendments to section 401(a)(9) made by sections 114 and 401 of the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act). “Required Minimum Distributions,” TD 10001, 89 F.R. 58886 (7/19/2024).
These final regulations do not address some of the changes made by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (Division T of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117–328, 136 Stat. 4459
(12/29/2022)), and so new proposed regulations have been published. “Required Minimum Distributions+,” REG-103529-23, 89 F.R. 58644 (7/19/2024).
One significant issue that is resolved by the new final regulations is whether required minimum distributions to an “eligible designated beneficiary,” which must be completed within 10 years, can be deferred for 10 years (like distributions subject to the 5 year limit can be deferred). It was originally thought that no distributions were required during the 10 year period, but under the final regulations the eligible designated beneficiary of an employee who had reached the required beginning date must continue to receive distributions based on the age of the deceased employee, and then receive the balance of the account at the end of the 10 years. (See “IRS Publication 590-B To Be Corrected” for some of the history of the confusion on this issue.)
The SECURE Act changes to section 401(a)(9) were summarized as “New (and Old) Minimum Required Distribution Rules Summarized” (1/28/2020), which will be updated as required by the new final and proposed regulations.