No Improper Commingling of Assets by Agent

Posted on by September 2, 2025

The duties of an agent under 20 Pa.C.S. § 5601.3 apply to powers of attorney created before January 1, 2015, but do not apply to acts of omissions of agents that occurred before that date, and an agent’s deposit in 2014 of a refund check payable to the principal into a bank account in the joint names of the principal and agent was not an improper commingling of assets when the joint account was created by the principal and did not include funds of the agent, but could be a breach of fiduciary duty for other reasons. Because the Orphans’ Court failed to consider other possible reasons, and prevented the parties from developing a record relevant to those other reasons, the case was remanded for further proceedings. In re: Estate of Eugenia M. Finnie, 1476 EDA 2022, 1477 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 2/27/2023) (non-precedential), vac’g and rem’g, 12 Fid.Rep.3d 203 (Montgomery O.C. 2022).

For a later opinion of the Superior Court in the same case, see “Insufficient Evidence of Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Agent.”

No Inter Vivos Gift of Realty without Deed

Posted on by September 1, 2025

The handwritten, notarized document signed by the decedent by which he purportedly “gave” his house to the claimant, with the condition that the claimant pay the existing mortgage until he was able to obtain a mortgage in his own name, was not an inter vivos gift of the property because there was no delivery of a deed, and so the claimant filed to present clear, direct, precise, and convincing evidence of his interest in the property. In re: Estate of Robert O. Garvin II, 1346 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 8/28/2025) (non-precedential).

Bucks Co. Fees of the Orphans’ Court and Register of Wills

Posted on by September 1, 2025

Bucks County has published new fee schedules for the Clerk of the Orphans’ Court and the Register of Wills. “Fees of the Clerk of the Orphans’ Court; Administrative Order No. 125” (8/19/2025), 55 Pa.B. 6171 (8/30/2025); “”Fees of the Register of Wills; Administrative Order No. 124” (8/19/2025), 55 Pa.B. 6174 (8/30/2025).

Proposed Amendment to Pa. R.O.C.P. 5.8 on the Discharge of a Fiduciary

Posted on by August 18, 2025

The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rule Committee has proposed amendments to Pa. R.O.C.P. 5.8, on the discharge of a fiduciary, in order to clarify that the rule does not apply to the discharge of a trustee under a nonjudicial settlement.

Comments, suggestions, or objections to the proposed amendment should be submitted by email (which is preferred) or regular mail and should be received by October 17, 2025.

“Proposed Amendment of Pa. R.O.C.P. 5.8,” 55 Pa.B. 5856 (8/16/2025).

Proposed Amendments to Pa. R.O.C.P. 7.1 on Discovery

Posted on by August 18, 2025

The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rule Committee has proposed amendments to Pa. R.O.C.P. 7.1 in order to include the procedures under Pa. R.Civ.P. 234.3 for notices to a party to attend a hearing or produce documents or things, and in order to to clarify that the discovery rules of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure should apply in cases in which there are no local Orphans’ Court rules for discovery and no local civil rules for discovery.

Comments, suggestions, or objections to the proposed amendment should be submitted by email (which is preferred) or regular mail and should be received by October 17, 2025.

“Proposed Amendment of Pa. R.O.C.P. 7.1,” 55 Pa.B. 5858 (8/16/2025).

Removal of Co-Trustee for Breaches of Trust during Deadlock

Posted on by August 11, 2025

When the two trustees disagreed about whether to sell the real property held in the trust or to continue to rent it out, one trustee was removed for breaches of trust because he acted unilaterally to stop offering the property for rent, which caused a loss of income for the trust, and he used trust funds to hire a lawyer to force a sale of the the property without consulting the co-trustee. Those actions were also a failure to cooperate that substantially impaired the administration of the trust, also supporting removal. The court declined to issue any order resolving the question of whether or not to sell the property until the remaining trustee and the new co-trustee had had an opportunity to agree on how to exercise their discretion. Smith Living Trust, 3 Fid.Rep.4th 71 (Montgomery O.C. 2025).