In a non-precedential decision, the Superior Court has affirmed that tangible personal property (wine collection, paintings, and lawn equipment) acquired during the marriage for the use of both spouses may be considered to be held as tenants by the entireties and so the sole property of the surviving spouse, citing DiFloridio v. DiFloridio, 331 A.2d 174 (Pa. 1975). In re: Estate of Paul A. Gardner, Sr., 464 MDA 2020 (Pa. Super. 7/8/2021) (non-precedential).
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court entered an order declaring an end to the statewide judicial emergency, and directing that the operation of the Unified Judicial System return to pre-pandemic states as of July 6, 2021. “General Statewide Judicial Emergency; No. 553 Judical Administration Doc.” (6/21/2021), 51 Pa.B. 3604 (7/3/2021).
On June 10, 2021, the Supreme Court entered an order amending Pa. O.C. Rule 1.1 to change the name of the rules from “Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules” to “Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure” (“Pa.R.O.C.P.”), effective October 1, 2021. According to the adoption report, the amendment is part of a number of changes to provide more uniformity among the procedural rules of different courts. “In re: Order Amending Rule 1.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure,” Supreme Court Rules Docket 871 (6/10/2021), 51 Pa.B. 3443 (6/26/2021).
A previous judge had found that the termination fee claimed by the corporate trustee was reasonable, and a hearing on the issue was not required, so the current court was bound by that earlier decree under the coordinate jurisdiction rule. The objections of the beneficiaries filed in 2009 to an account approved by the beneficiaries in 2001 were properly dismissed as untimely. Boies Est. (No. 2), 11 Fid.Rep.3d 53 (Lackawanna O.C. 2020), on appeal, .
The corporate trustee will not be surcharged for failing to diversify the investments of a trust when (a) the trust document specifically authorized the retention of the investments used to fund the trust and (b) the trust document directed that the decision of the individual trustee should prevail in any disagreement between the two trustees and the individual trustee repeatedly rejected the recommendation of the corporate trustee that the trust investments be diversified. The corporate trustee also had no duty to communicate to the beneficiaries the disagreement between the individual and corporate trustees. Boies Est. (No. 1), 11 Fid.Rep.3d 41 (Lackawanna O.C. 2020).
That the decedent was named as the father of the claimant on her birth certificate, together with testimony that the decedent “held out” the claimant as his daughter by allowing her to reside with him when she was a child, and again for two or three years while she was in high school, that he provided support for her, and that he signed guardianship papers to allow the claimant to live with her aunt, is clear and convincing evidence that the claimant is the child of the decedent under 20 Pa.C.S. § 2107(c)(2) and an intestate heir. Estate of David W. Ackley, Sr., 11 Fid.Rep.3d 35 (Monroe O.C. 2020).
[For a previous opinion denying the administrator’s request that the claimant be required to take a DNA test, see Ackley, Sr. Estate, 10 Fid.Rep.3d 253, 55 Monroe, No. 41, P. 10 (Monroe O.C. 2020).]
A person who has been adjudicated incapacitated is presumed to lack testamentary capacity and the burden is on the proponent of the will to provide clear and convincing evidence of testamentary capacity, or at least a lucid interval. Testimony of subscribing witness that the testator “seemed alert … like he knew what he was doing and why” was insufficient, and testimony of lawyer was discounted because she failed to take customary precautions to determine that testamentary capacity existed. Both the decedent’s will, which was also found to be the product of undue influence by the decedent’s caretaker, and individual retirement account beneficiary designation were therefore found to be invalid. In re: Estate of F. Harvey Whitten, Deceased, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 29 (Montgomery O.C. 2019).
Under the Pa. Structured Settlement Protection Act, 40 P.S. §§ 4001-4009, courts are required to supervise all aspects of settlements in which a minor is a party in interest, and an assignment of annuities issued as part of a structured settlement requires the approval of the court that approved the structured settlement. An order by the Orphans’ Court that approved the structured settlement for a minor to consolidate actions in other counties regarding the assignment of annuities issued as part of the settlement, and directing that all annuity payments be made to the court pending a determination of the validity of the assignments, was not an an injunction and was neither a final appealable order nor an appealable order regarding an injunction. Barber v. Stanko, 2021 PA Super 97 (5/14/2021), quashing appeal of, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 11 (Allegheny O.C. 2021).
York County has adopted new local Orphans’ Court rules. “Adoption of Local Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure; 6721-0305” (4/19/2021), 51 Pa.B. 2488 (5/8/2021).
An award from the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund was not payable to the surviving spouse, despite the language of 20 Pa.C.S. § 2102(2), because it was not payable under the act specified in that section, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, but under a later, different act. In Re: Estate of Richard A. Chennisi, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 22 (Chester O.C. 2021), reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded, 2022 PA Super 31, ___ A.3d ___ (2/18/2022).