It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to deny two post-hearing motions that sought to add documents to the record, and to request a new evaluation of the incapacitated person, when the issues being addressed by the motions were known before the hearing and further delays were not in the best interests of the incapacitated person. Other issues were found to be waived or without merit, and the Superior Court refused to rely on a non-precedential decision issued before May 1, 2019, the effective date of Pa. R.A.P. 126(b) which allows reliance on persuasive non-precedential opinion. In re: Cody Zedak, and Incapacitated Person, 112 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 10/23/2025).
Lease signed by agent for trustees as owners of the property was invalid because the power of attorney did not have the notice required by 20 Pa.C.S. § 5601(c) or the acknowledgement of the agent required by 20 Pa.C.S. § 5601(d). The immunity provision of 20 Pa.C.S. § 5608(d) was not relevant because at issue was the validity of an option under a lease and there was no liability being asserted against the agent or the parties dealing the agent. Motee v. Bazzanza, Trustee, 395 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 10/15/2025) (non-precedential).
The petitioner alleged that the decedent had entered into a contract with her husband not to change their wills, but the lawyer who was alleged to have written the contract had no record or recollection of preparing the contract, the testimony of the petitioner that the lawyer admitted preparing the contract was not credible, the contract did not appear to have been written by a lawyer, the notary who allegedly took the acknowledgments of the decedent and her husband was not called to testify, and the petitioner produced only a photocopy of the alleged contract, so the petitioner failed to meet her burden of production and burden of persuasion and the alleged contract was not admissible under the “best evidence” rule of Pa. R.E. 1003. MacRae Estate (No. 1), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 123 (Berks O.C. 2023) (decision and order); MacRae Estate (No. 2), 3 Fid.Rep.4th 135 (Berks O.C. 2023) (Pa. R.A.P. 1925 opinion), aff’d, 549 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 4/22/2024) (non-precedential).
Lehigh County has published a new schedule of fees for the Register of Wills. “Clerk of Judicial Records—Register of Wills Division Fee Schedule; Case No. 2025-J-0110” (9/18/2025), 55 Pa.B. 7237 (10/18/2025).
The Internal Revenue Service has released Rev. Proc. 2025-32, 2025-44 I.R.B. ____ (10/27/2025), with inflation adjustments for 2026 (sooner that inflation adjustments are usually published), and the significant federal estate tax and trust planning numbers previously published were correct. Those numbers are as follows:
- The annual gift tax exclusion will remain at $19,000 (same as for 2025).
- The annual gift tax exclusion for a non-citizen spouse will be $194,000 (had been $190,000 for 2025).
- The “2 percent” amount for purposes of section 6166 will be $1,940,000 (was $1,900,000).
- The limitation on the special use valuation reduction under section 2032A will be $1,460,000 (was $1,420,000).
- The top (37%) income tax bracket for estates and trusts will begin at $16,000 (was $15,650).
- The alternative minimum tax exemption for estates and trusts will be $31,400 (was $30,700), and the phaseout of the exemption will start at $104,800 (was $102,450).
Not included in the above list is the federal estate tax base applicable exclusion amount (and generation-skipping tax exemption), because it was changed to $15,000,000 for deaths and gifts in 2026 by section 70106 of P.L. 119-21 (the “megabill” formerly known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill”). It had been $13,990,000 for 2025, and will not be adjusted for inflation until 2027.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has issued an “exemptive relief order” delaying the effective date of the residential real estate transaction reporting regulations (31 C.F.R. § 1031.320 et seq.) to March 1, 2026. “Exemptive Relief Order to Delay the Effective Date of the Residential Real Estate Rule” (9/30/2025), ___ F.R. ___ (______).
The trustees of a trust for the lifetime benefit of the decedent made discretionary distributions to the decedent for which the decedent signed agreements indemnifying the trustees. Following the death of the decedent, the remainder beneficiaries sued the trustees, and the decedent’s estate assumed the costs of defending the trustees. The Orphans’ Court had held that the settlement payments by the estate to the trust remaindermen were not deductible debts of the estate under section 2129(b) of the Inheritance and Estate Tax Act (72 P.S. § 7129(b)) because one of the trustees who was indemnified was also the counsel to the decedent and had a confidential relationship with the decedent, resulting in multiple conflicts of interest (e.g., that trustee signed some of the agreements both as agent for the decedent and as an indemnified trustee), and so the indemnification agreements were not “bona fide” agreements. The Commonwealth Court held that the estate had the burden of showing that the indemnification agreements were “fair under the circumstances and beyond the reach of suspicion” and failed to make that showing. It was also not an error or abuse of discretion by the Orphans’ Court to conclude that the trust litigation expenses were not deductible by the estate because the litigation did not involve the estate and did not benefit the estate even though the court had approved the payment of the expenses from the estate. Estate of Richard M. Scaife v. Commonwealth, ___ A.4th ___, 88 CD 2024 (Pa. Cmwlth. 9/23/2025), aff’g in part, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 61 (Westmoreland O.C. 2023).
An intestate heir has standing to challenge the validity of a will that has been admitted to probate if in his petition he alleges a “realistic probability” that a will that was executed one year before and that also disinherits him is also invalid, so that he would receive an intestate share of the estate if both wills were invalid. This is true even though the court has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of the earlier will, and only the validity of the will that was admitted to probate would be adjudicated in the current proceedings. The allegations that the decedent exhibited signs of dementia and was wholly dependent” on the principal beneficiary of the contested will were sufficient allegations of a confidential relationship for purposes of undue influence. Finally, the proponent of the will would receive 60% of the estate, and not an intestate share of one third, so there was a showing of “substantial benefit” for purposes of undue influence even though the proponent would receive a similar share of the estate under the earlier will (for which the contestant alleged a “realistic probability” of invalidity). In re: Estate of Vicent J. Morante, Sr., 2025 PA Super 176, ___ A.4th ___ (8/14/2025).
In 2024, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) published final regulations, to be effective December 1, 2025, requiring financial reporting for non-financed residential real estate transactions. “Anti-Money Laundering Regulations for Residential Real Estate Transfers,” 84 F.R. 70258 (9/29/2024), adopting 31…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee has proposed a number of amendments to rules relating to hearing notices in proceedings for the termination of parental rights. “Proposed Amendment of Rules 4.5, 4.6, 15.4, 15.7, 15.8, 15.9, 15.10, and 15.13 and Adoption of Form A-13 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure,” 55 Pa.B. 6684 (9/20/2025).