In a dispute over a number of documents and transactions executed before the decedent’s death, the court found that the respondents had helped care for the decedent and had a close and confidential relationship with the decedent, and that their interests in his estate increased from about 40% of his estate and financial accounts to all of his estate and 64% of his accounts, which was a substantial benefit, but that neurological evidence showed that the decedent did not suffer from a weakened intellect, and so the disputed documents and transactions were not due to undue influence. Gandolfo Domenico Nicchi Estate, 12 Fid.Rep.3d 102 (Bucks O.C. 2021).
The Orphans’ Court agreed that it erred by ordering a party to file an account after dismissing preliminary objections and without allowing the party to file an answer to the petition, but concluded that the resulting decree was not an appealable order. Wengert Estate and Bierman Living Trust, 12 Fid.Rep. 99 (Lycoming O.C. 2021).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has increased the annual registration fee paid by lawyers from $145 to $195. “Amendment of Rule 219(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement; No. 219 Disciplinary Rules Docket” (3/14/2022), 52 Pa.B. 1733 (3/26/2022).
The COVID-19 emergency declarations of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas did not preclude the court from removing a co-trustee of a trust, and the removal was proper because the co-trustee had evidenced hostility to the beneficiaries and the other co-trustee that jeopardized the administration of the trust and had taken steps that thwarted the proper administration of the trust and prevented beneficiaries from receiving their shares of the trust. Kelsey Trust, 12 Fid.Rep.3d 80 (Delaware O.C. 2020).
An attorney who represents a beneficiary of an estate to remove an executor and who later represents the same person as successor executor does not have a conflict of interest. An objection claiming that the destruction of a computer caused the destruction of records of other assets of the estate was dismissed because of credible testimony that there were no such records on the computer and because there was no evidence indicating the existence of assets other than those included in the account. Objections to the distributions of tangible personal property, and to executor commissions and legal fees, were also dismissed. Albertson Estate, 12 Fid.Rep.3d 62 (Monroe O.C. 2021).
Although two of the beneficiaries who might receive remainder distributions upon the termination of the trust in 2022 have disclaimed parts of their interests, and there are possible minor and future unborn remaindermen, the court waived the appointment of a trustee ad litem and dispensed with the appointment of a guardian ad litem because the interests of minors were adequately represented by adult parties in interest. Rorer Estate, 12 Fid.Rep.3d 59 (Montgomery O.C. 2021).
An award from the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund was 100% payable to the surviving spouse as part of her intestate share of the estate in accordance with 20 Pa.C.S. § 2102(2) because it was payable under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, as amended, but it was nevertheless subject to expenses of estate administration. Estate of Richard A. Chennisi, 2022 PA Super 31, ___ A.3d ___ (2/18/2022), reversing in part, affirming in part, and remanding, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 22 (Chester O.C. 2021).
The Internal Revenue Service has published new proposed regulations to address 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,” REG-105954-20, 87 F.R. 10504 (2/24/2022).
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 proposed regulations.
[3/25/2022 Update] See “Required Minimum Distributions: Correction,” 87 F.R. 15907 (3/21/2022), for some typographical corrections to the proposed regulations.
The most recent Pennsylvania Bulletin includes actual and proposed changes to CLE and annual registration procedures that may be of interest to Pennsylvania lawyers generally.
- The Rules for Continuing Legal Education have been amended to allow some CLE credits for some kinds of pro bono work. “Order Amending Rules 106 and 108 of the Pennsylvania Rules for Continuing Legal Education and Approving Amendments to Regulations §§ 1, 5 and 13 of the Continuing Legal Education Board Regulations; No. 905 Supreme Court Rules Docket” (1/31/2022), 52 Pa.B. 964 (2/12/2022).
- Changes are being proposed to the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, the focus of which is a rewrite of the rules for annual attorney registration to “improve readability, consistency, and flow of information” so that attorneys “can more easily understand and fulfill their annual license obligations.” “Proposed Amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement 102, 201, 204, 205, 208, 212, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 301, 321, 401, 402, 403, 502, 521, and 531 and Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.17,” 52 Pa.B. 942 (2/12/2022).
The distribution of real property to two of the decedent’s four children, with additional cash distributed to the other two children, was not subject to realty transfer tax under the principle of Baehr Bros. v. Com., 487 Pa. 233 (1979), because it could have been carried out as two exempt transactions: a distribution of the property to all four children followed by a sale by two of the children to the other two. Vaughan Estate, 12 Fid. Rep. 55 (Board of Finance and Revenue 2020).