An appeal of a denial of legal fees is not an interlocutory appeal but an appeal allowable under Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(5) because it is a determination of whether the petitioner is a creditor of the incapacitated person’s estate. However, a determination of incapacity is a form of in rem jurisdiction, and so a lack of jurisdiction over the incapacitated person is a non-waivable lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The in rem jurisdiction that the Orphans’ Court needs to adjudicate incapacity is the “jurisdiction” that is defined by the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA), 20 Pa.C.S. Ch. 59, so an issue under the UAGPPJA may be raised at any time. Whether the alleged incapacitated person intended to leave Pennsylvania temporarily was not determined by the Orphans’ Court, so the case was remanded to make that determination as well as other factual findings that may be necessary under the UAGPPJA, before the Superior Court could reach the merits of the fee dispute. In re: Mary D. Avery, an Alleged Incapacitated Person, ___ A.4th ___, 2026 PA Super 124 (6/16/2026).
York County has adopted new or amended local rules for guardianship petitions, effective August 1, 2026. “Adoption of Local Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure; 6726-1315 AO” (6/233/2026), 56 Pa.B. 3856 (7/4/2026).
Monroe County has adopted a new local rule, Monroe Co. R.O.C. 4.7, for permissible electronic filing in the Orphans’ Court, effective thirty days after publication. “Local Rule of Orphans’ Court 4.7—Permissible e-File; 7 AD 2026; 5 CV 2026” (6/15/2026), 56 Pa.B. 3724 (6/27/2026).
A lawyer will sometimes get a call or email from the agent acting under a client’s durable general power of attorney with questions about the client’s estate plan. The lawyer continues to owe a duty of confidentiality to the client…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
Objections to an account were waived when they were not included in written objections filed in accordance with Pa. R.O.C.P. 2.7 and no request was made to amend the objections that were filed. The objections that were filed and were properly denied by the Orphans’ Court included objections to the representation of the executor by an attorney that the objectants claimed had breached fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries, objections to the payment of medical expenses which the objectants claimed should have been paid by insurance and those objection were denied because the objectants failed to offer proof of their claim (and it was the objectants and not the executor that had the burden of proof), and objections that were not “specific as to description and amount.” Estate of Caroline S. Fellman, ___ A.4th ___, 2026 PA Super 121 (6/12/2026), aff’g, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 288 (Montgomery O.C. 2025).
One of the major goals of the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act (Act of July 7, 2006, No. 98 of 2006) was to conform the laws relating to revocable trusts to the laws relating to wills and decedent’s estates. The chart below…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
In a previous article, it was suggested that the new limitation on itemized deductions, reducing itemized deductions by 2/37ths of the amount by the amount by which taxable income is subject to tax at the maximum 37% rate, should not…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
The refusal of the Orphans’ Court to approve a “spend-down plan” to allow the incapacitated person to qualify for Medicaid by spending principal on a burial fund and making gifts was not an abuse of discretion or an error of law because the proposed spend-down plan would neither minimize taxes nor carry out a lifetime giving pattern as required by 20 Pa.C.S. § 5536, and would not benefit the incapacitated person in any way, but only benefit the guardian as the recipient of the proposed gifts. (The Orphans’ Court also ordered that the guardian pay the counsel fees associated with the petition seeking approval of the spend-down plan, but that part of the order was not appealed.) In re: J.C.B., an Incapacitated Person, 2397 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/26/2026) (non-precedential).
The notice of audit of the executor’s account that was sent to the decedent’s grandchildren and other beneficiaries stated that objections must be filed 20 days before the audit date, but the grandchildren received a copy of the decree setting the audit date and stating that any objections must filed in accordance with Pa. R.O.C.P. 2.7. Because Rule 2.7 allows objections to be raised at audit, and the grandchildren were actually present at the audit but raised no objections and did not request an extension of time to file objections, they waived any objections to the account. In re: Estate of Maurice R. Davis Jr., 1459 EDA 2025 and 1376 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/26/2026) (non-precedential).
The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee has published proposed amendments for the appointment of guardians ad litem when there is a conflict between the legal interests and best interests of an incapacitated person. (The comments to the proposed rule explain that there may be a conflict between what the incapacitated person has a legal right to want and what may be in his or her best interests.) “Proposed Amendment of Pa.R.O.C.P. 5.5 and 14.4,” 56 Pa.B. 2974 (5/23/2025).