For a series of cases in involving a series of car collisions, the cases in which a decedent’s estate is a party will not be consolidated with the other cases because of the possibility that the Dead Mans’ Act could be waived unintentionally, and because of the confusion or prejudice that could occur if testimony were admissible against some parties but not the estate. Marc Pitman v. Jason Piatt, 12 Fid.Rep.3d 51 (Franklin C.D. 2021).
Objectants to will failed to produce any evidence of lack of testamentary capacity when the will was signed, but produced evidence of a power of attorney establishing a confidential relationship, that the proponent of the will received a substantial benefit under the will through his role as trustee of a charitable trust, and that the decedent was showing noticeable symptoms of dementia and a weakened intellect, and so undue influence is presumed. However, the proponent produced clear and convincing evidence that the decedent had long intended to disinherit his family and that the will was not the product of undue influence. Rosemeier Estate, 12 Fid.Rep.3d 38 (Clinton O.C. 2021).
Decedent failed to maintain a life insurance policy required by an antenuptial agreement with his widow, but the amount paid by the estate for the benefit of the widow under a negotiated settlement agreement did not qualify for the 0% inheritance tax rate because the widow did not elect against the will within the time allowed by statute, and because there was no court-approved compromise under 72 P.S. § 9116(d) and the beneficiaries under the will did not file renunciations of any interests as required by 72 § 9116(c). Toland Estate, 12 Fid.Rep.3d 27 (Montgomery O.C. 2021), on appeal, 147 CD 2021 (Cmwlth. Ct.).
Objectants to the will failed to prove lack of testamentary capacity by clear, strong, and compelling evidence, and the court sustained the validity of the will despite the testimony of a subscribing witness that she believed that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity and despite the failure of any party to call the notary public as a witness. The objectants also failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the son who received the residuary estate under the will, and who drafted the will, was in a confidential relationship with the decedent and so so exercised undue influence over his father. Similarly, the woman who arranged for the execution of the will and did cooking and cleaning for the decedent did not appear to be in a confidential relationship. D’Hue Estate, 12 Fid.Rep.3d 1 (Lycoming O.C. 2021).
The Supreme Court has adopted amendments to a number of Orphans’ Court rules to change references to “master” to “hearing officer.” The purpose of the amendments is to eliminate a term that has “a perjorative connotation” in “modern parlance outside of court,” and the proposed changes were published in August 2021. “Order Amending Rules 1,3, 2.11, 9.1, 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure; 898 Supreme Court Rules Docket” (1/6/2022), 52 Pa.B. 441 (1/22/2022).
Pa.R.O.C.P. 10.5 has been amended to require that a notice of estate administration be given upon the grant of letters and whenever there is a change in personal representatives, including changes due to the death or resignation of a personal representative. “In re: Order Amending Rule 10.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure; No. 901 Supreme Court Rules Docket,” (1/12/2022), 52 Pa.B. 684 (1/29/2022).
[DBE Comment: The amended rule as adopted is different in several respects from the amendment as originally proposed, and some of the changes appear to be the result of comments that were submitted to the Procedural Rules Committee. See “Comments to Proposed Amendment to Pa.O.C. Rule 10.5(a).”]
An inherited individual retirement account (IRA) is not protected from the claims of creditors of the beneficiary because following the death of the IRA owner the account is not a “retirement account” within the meaning of 42 Pa.C.S. § 8124(b)(1)(ix). Jones v. McGreevy, 270 A.3d 1, 2022 PA Super 8 (1/11/2022).
[DBE Comment: In “Rights of Creditors in Non-Estate Assets,” it was suggested that an IRA remains exempt from the claims of the creditors of the account owner following the death of the account owner, and that conclusion does not seem to be affected by the Jones decision, which addressed claims of creditors of the beneficiary and not creditors of the account owner. Nevertheless, the article has been updated to include a citation to this decision.]
Counties have begun updating their local rules to conform to the amendments of Pa.R.O.C.P 1.99 and the Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania to require the use of the confidential information form and eliminate the option of filing redacted copies of pleadings. The following are the first three to have published changes to their local rules affecting the Orphans’ Court.
“Rule of Judicial Administration of the Court of Common Pleas; No. AD-2021-255-PJ,” (Allegheny C.P. 12/14/2021), 52 Pa.B. 13 (1/1/2022).
“Rescission of Local Rule of Orphans’ Court 1.99A. Confidential Information and Confidential Documents. Certification.; No. [sic],” (Montgomery O.C. 12/14/2021), 25 Pa.B. 15 (1/1/2022).
“Public Access to Case Records in the Court of Common Pleas; No. 2021-1,” (Washington C.P. 12/14/2021), 52 Pa.B. 16 (1/1/2022).
Evidence that the decedent wanted to live nearer to her son in North Carolina, and the testimony of disinterested witnesses that the decedent did not intend to return to Pennsylvania, was sufficient to overcome the presumption of continued domicile in Pennsylvania, depriving the court of jurisdiction over the probate of the decedent’s will. Vaccarello Estate, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 320 (Montgomery O.C. 2021).
A beneficiary of an inter vivos trust had a reasonable basis for her objections to the account of the trustee, and so the in terrorem clause did not apply to forfeit her of her beneficial interests in the trust. Kammer Family Trust, 11 Fid.Rep.3d 315 (Montgomery O.C. 2020).
[DBE Comment: “Reasonable basis” or “probable cause” for the objections should not have even been an issue, because the objections to the trustee’s account alleged breaches of trust, so the objectant was not contesting the trust or attempting to “set aside, nullify, or void” the trust, but was attempting to enforce it. The duty of a trustee to account is a fundamental duty, and the duty to account would be meaningless if the beneficiaries could not object to items in the account which were contrary to the terms of the trust or violated fiduciary duties.]