Amendments to Public Access O.C. Rules

The Supreme Court has entered an order with attached amendments to Pa.O.C. Rule 1.99 and the notes to various other rules to change all references to the public access policy from “Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts” to “Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania.”  (See “Public Access Policy Amendments” for links to the previous orders that changed the title of the policy.)

“In re: Order Amending Rules 1.99, 2.1, 2.4, 2.7, 2.8, 2.10, 3.3-3.6, 3.9-3.11, 3.14, 7.2-7.4, and 8.2 of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules,” 48 Pa.B. 3573 (6/16/2018), No. 772 Supreme Court Rules Docket (6/1/2018).

New Guardianship Rules and Forms

The Supreme Court has entered an order with attached new Pa.O.C. Rules 14.1 through 14.14 and amendments to Rules 1.5 and 5.10 through 5.12, new Orphans’ Court Forms G-01 through G-04, and an explanatory report of the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee.  This order rescinds and replaces all guardianship rules and four guardianship forms.  The new rules were previously published for comment at 47 Pa.B. 5930 (September 23, 2017); 47 Pa.B. 4815 (August 19, 2017); and 46 Pa.B. 7934 (December 17, 2016).

The new rules will be effective June 1, 2019.

“In re: Order Rescinding and Replacing Rules 14.1 through 14.5 and Forms G-01 through G-04, and Amending Rules 1.5, 5.10 through 5.12, and Index to Appendix of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules,” 48 Pa.B. 3524 (6/16/2018), No. 770 Supreme Court Rules Docket (6/1/2018).

The Supreme Court has also entered an order directing that local guardianship rules be reviewed and that new rules be submitted to the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee for review in accordance with O.C. Rule 1.5 not later than December 1, 2018.  All existing local guardianship rules will be vacated effective June 1, 2019.

“In re: Review and Vacatur of Local Orphans’ Court Rules,” 48 Pa.B. 3582 (6/16/2018), No. 771 Supreme Court Rules Docket (6/1/2018).

 

 

Cy Pres for Reorganized Hospital

The rules of construction for lapsed legacies which are found at 20 Pa.C.S. § 2514(9), (10), and (11) apply only to individuals and so are not relevant to the cy pres doctrine, which the Orphans’ Court properly applied in directing that a share of the income of a charitable trust be paid to the nonprofit community foundation that is the successor to the hospital that was the original beneficiary of the trust and that supports the health care needs of the same community formerly served by the hospital.  In re: Trust Created under the Will of William J. Cohen, 2018 PA Super 138 (5/25/2018).

No Direct Distribution to School

Trustee of terminating trust had proposed distribution directly to a public school, rather than to a trustee for the school, believing that the costs of administering the trust would outweigh the benefits of the trust, but the Attorney General objected and it was ordered that the distribution be made to a community foundation for the benefit of the school.  Leese Estate, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 139 (York Co. O.C. 2018).

Pennsylvania Guardianship with Florida Trust

Fees of guardian and her counsel were approved over objections of the trustee of the ward’s revocable trust in Florida, the request for counsel fees by the trustee were denied, and the guardian was granted permission to submit a new budget for the needs of the ward, which funds would need to be requested from the Florida trustee, over which the Pennsylvania court had no jurisdiction.  In Re: Estate of Connie Greco, Alleged Incapacitated Person, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 133 (Montgomery Co. O.C. 2018), aff’d, 812 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. 2/21/2019) (non-precedential).

Intervention and Consolidation for Related Trusts

Son was allowed to intervene in litigation which his deceased father had begun over the validity of a trust allegedly created by the father, even though the son’s interests as a beneficiary under his father’s will were protected by the administrator of his father’s estate, when there was also a dispute about whether assets of his mother’s trust had been improperly transferred to his father’s trust.  Because of the overlap of factual issues between the two trusts, the trials over the father’s trust and mother’s trust were consolidated.  Summary judgment on the issue of the validity of the father’s trust was denied because of factual issues surrounding the alleged execution of the trust, and summary judgment was also denied on whether the property transferred to the father’s trust would revert to joint tenancy with the daughter if the trust were found to be voidable.  Altemose Trusts, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 119 (Monroe Co. O.C. 2018).

Lawyer Bias or Prejudice as Misconduct

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has proposed a new Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g) that would make it a matter of professional misconduct to “knowingly manifest bias or prejudice” in the practice of law.  “Proposed Amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct Regarding Misconduct,” 48 Pa.B. 2936 (5/19/2018).

Eligible Institutions for Fiduciary Funds (5/2018)

The Supreme Court has published an updated list of the financial institutions which are “eligible institutions” in which lawyers may deposit funds held by the lawyer as a personal representative, guardian, conservator, receiver, trustee, agent under a durable power of attorney, or other similar position.  (See Pa.R.D.E. 221(b) and Pa.R.P.C. 1.15(a)(2).)  “Financial Institutions Approved as Depositories for Fiduciary Accounts; No. 159 Disciplinary Rules Doc.,” 48 Pa.B. 2944 (5/19/2018).

The most recent list can be found in this directory.