The Orphans’ Court had jurisdiction to appoint an administrator of an estate following the removal of the administrator originally agreed to by the parties and it was not necessary to remand the choice of administrators to the Register of Wills. In light of the protracted litigation among the beneficiaries, it was not error to appoint an independent administrator rather than a beneficiary named in a codicil that had not been admitted to probate. Romano Estate, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 301 (Bucks O.C. 2024), aff’d 45 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 10/23/2024) (non-precedential; claims deemed waived), pet. for app., 549 MAL 2024 (Pa.).
The Orphans’ Court was justified in imposing counsel fees to an estate for “vexatious, arbitrary, and obdurate” conduct by claimants when the claims were for an unconscionable and unenforceable penalty clause in a contract and for rent under a lease which the court found was not authenticated and bore indicia of fraud, the claimants did not appeal the denial of their claims, but attempted to evade service of the citation for the petition for counsel fees and failed to appear at the hearing on the petition, and the issues raised on appeal were waived for failing to appeal the denial of their claims and failing to appear at the hearing on the petition for fees (or seek reconsideration of the grant of fees), as well as violations of the rules of appellate procedure. Mulligan Estate (No. 3), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 280 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), app. pend. 1912 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.).
[The opinions on the claims against the estate were published at 2 Fid.Rep.4th 252 and 2 Fid.Rep.4th 259, which were summarized in “Liquidated Damages of 50% of Contract Price is Unenforceable” and “Authenticity of Lease Not Proven and Claims Denied.”]
Florida was the proper jurisdiction to probate the will of the decedent, and not Pennsylvania, when the decedent was physically present in Florida for the last years of his life, had obtained a Florida driver’s license, had registered to vote in Florida, had filed nonresident Pennsylvania income tax returns, owned no real property in Pennsylvania except through a limited liability company, and had no bank accounts in Pennsylvania, although the decedent had formed a revocable trust that was administered by a Pennsylvania lawyer. Milligan Estate (No. 1), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 276 (Chester O.C.. 2024), app. pend., 2310 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.).
A more detailed Pa. R.A.P. 1925 opinion addressing the same issues has been published as Milligan Estate (No. 2), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 351 (Chester O.C. 2024).
The trustee’s final account showed that the $10 million life insurance policy owned by the trust lapsed when the obligation of the employer to pay premiums under the split dollar agreement ended, the cash surrender value of the policy was exhausted, the trust had no funds to pay premiums, and the settlor did not wish to make additional contributions to the trust for the payment of premiums. The objections to the account were dismissed because: the trustee acted in good faith when it complied with the wishes of the settlor and the settlor’s family in exchanging a $5 million joint-and-survivor life insurance policy subject to a split dollar agreement for a $10 million policy, and so complied with the standard of care in the trust agreement; the trustee violated an agreement to annually review the policy, but no harm was done because the settlor conducted annual reviews with which the trustee cooperated; the trustee was insulated from liability under 20 Pa.C.S. 7208, which states that a trustee who acquires or retains a contract of insurance on the life of the settlor or the settlor’s spouse is without liability for failing to determine whether the contract is or remains a proper investment; and the objectors failed to show that the original $5 million policy would have become self-sustaining without additional premiums, and so no damages were proven. Gardner Trust, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 269 (Cumberland O.C. 2023).
The authenticity of a lease was denied, and claims against the estate based on the lease were dismissed, when there were inconsistencies in both the signature of the decedent and among the pages of the lease. Mulligan Estate (No. 2), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 259 (Montgomery O.C. 2023), app. pend. 1912 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.).
[The decision on a motion for summary judgment on the lease claim can be found in Mulligan Estate (No. 1), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 252 (Montgomery O.C. 2023). An opinion on the imposition of counsel fees against the claimants can be found in Mulligan Estate (No. 3), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 280 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), app. pend. 1912 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.).]
Preliminary objections to a second amended complaint against the plaintiff’s brother, individually and as administrator of their father’s estate, were upheld and the complaint dismissed with prejudice when there were erroneous legal conclusions and insufficient factual allegations, and the issues raised in the complaint “substantially overlap” with issues already raised in an Orphans’ Court proceeding involving the same decedent. Vasil v. Vasil, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 265 (Mercer C.D. 2022), aff’d 1367 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 1/25/2024), (non-precedential).
[In an earlier decision, the Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Orphans’ Court to deny without a hearing a petition by the same plaintiff to remove his brother as the administrator of the estate. In re: Estate of Michael Vasil, 156 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 1/11/2022) (non-precedential).]
Schuylkill County has adopted new fee schedules for both the Register of Wills and the Clerk of the Orphans’ Court, effective January 1, 2025. “Administrative Order; No. 5424-0982” (11/18/2024), 54 Pa.B. 7829 (12/7/2024).
In a contract allegedly signed by the decedent for the purchase of real estate, a provision for “liquidated damages” of 50% of the contract price is unenforceable as a penalty, and a motion by the executor to dismiss an objection asserting a claim for liquidated damages was granted. A motion to dismiss another objection, asserting a claim for unpaid rent, was granted in part because the decedent had not signed the lease and the apartment was occupied by the decedent’s son and not the decedent. Mulligan Estate (No. 1), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 252 (Montgomery O.C. 2023).
[The lease claim was finally dismissed in Mulligan Estate (No. 2), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 259 (Montgomery O.C. 2023), app. pend. 1912 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.). An opinion on the imposition of counsel fees against the claimants can be found in Mulligan Estate (No. 3), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 280 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), app. pend. 1912 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.).]
Real properties were transferred from parent to two children (some of the properties passing by disclaimers) in order to avoid environmental claims, with an oral promise to retransfer to the parent upon his request. After the children failed to retransfer the properties, a claim by parent for a resulting trust was denied because the parent did not provide funds for the children to purchase the properties, any claim for a constructive arose when the parent demanded that the properties be retransferred to him and was barred by a five year statute of limitations (which was not tolled or removed by a later renewal of promises to retransfer), a claim for specific performance was barred by the statute of frauds, and a claim for unjust enrichment was barred by a four year statute of limitations. Boyko v. Boyko, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 241 (Lehigh Civ.Div. 2022), aff’d 311 A.3d 626, 107 EDA 2023 (Pa.Super. 12/29/2023), (non-precedential).
The appeal from the court’s order approving the sale of the decedent’s residence should be quashed because the appellant’s “concise statement of errors” does not specify which order is being appealed, and the “rambling” statement failed to set forth any meritorious issues. O’Brien Estate (No. 2), 2 Fid.Rep.4th 232 (Montgomery O.C. 2024), app. pend., 942 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super.).