It is a violation of due process for a state to refuse to put the name of the wife of a birth mother on a birth certificate if the state would put the name of a husband on a birth certificate even though the husband is not the biological father. Pavan v. Smith, 582 U.S. ____, No. 16-992 (6/26/2017) (per curiam; Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito dissenting).
Evidence that decedent believed he had provided for his daughters during his lifetime, that decedent did not contact his attorney about preparing a new will or speak to any other attorney about a new will, and that the decedent had a “convoluted” filing system which could have caused the family to overlook the will when cleaning out his house, was sufficient to overcome the presumption that the missing will was destroyed by the decedent with the intention of revoking it, and so the probate of a copy of the missing will was affirmed. Estate of Charles F. Maddi, 167 A.3d 818, 2017 PA Super 246, (7/25/2017), app. den., 178 A.3d 107 (2018).
Mercer County has adopted new Orphans’ Court rules to supplement the statewide rules that became effective September 1, 2016. “Local Rules of Court; No. 17-1,” (Mercer Co. 7/24/2017), 47 Pa.B. 4524 (8/5/17).
The Supreme Court has held that that 20 Pa.S.C. § 7766 is the exclusive method for removing a trustee, and that a trust cannot be modified under § 7740.1 to allow the beneficiaries to remove and replace the trustee. Trust under Agreement of Edward Winslow Taylor, 640 Pa. 629, 164 A.3d 1147, 15 EAP 2016 (Pa. 7/19/2017), rev’g 124 A.3d 334, 2015 PA Super 199, (9/18/2015).
For additional background and analysis of the Superior Court opinion, see Trust Modifications to Remove Trustees. (Commentary on the Supreme Court opinion is also planned.)
Monroe County has adopted new local Orphans’ Court rules consistent with the state-wide rules that took effect in September 2016, to be effective 30 days after publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
“Implementation of Local Orphans’ Court Rules; 5 CV 2017 ADM # 49” (Monroe Co. 6/28/2017), 47 Pa.B. 3810 (7/15/2017).
The successor agent did not have the power to bind the principal to an arbitration agreement when there was no showing that the initial agent named in the power of attorney was “unwilling or unable to act” as attorney-in-fact for the principal, as required by the power of attorney. Petersen v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 155 A.3d 641, 2017 PA Super 26 (2/1/2017).
When a parent sets up a bank account in the names of herself and her two children, the surviving child becomes the sole owner of the account following the death of the parent and (four days later) the death of one of the children, the conflicting provisions of the parent’s will not being clear and convincing evidence of a different intent. Orenak Estate, 7 Fid.Rep.3d 102 (O.C. Indiana Co. 2016), aff’d 1830 WDS 2015 (Pa. Super. 12/22/2016) (non-precedential).
The conclusion of the Orphans’ Court that there was a “reasonable probability” that a mother will be able to remedy conditions and regain custody of children was not supported by the record and ignored the requirements of the Adoption Act with respect to termination of parental rights, because the circumstances that lead to the children being removed from the parents’ custody had not changed. Case remanded to the Orphans’ Court to allow reconsideration of the possible benefits of the parental relationships under 23 P.C.S. § 2511(b). In the Matter of the Adoption of M.A.B., 2017 PA Super 202 (6/29/2017).
A child born before the execution of will and not provided for by the will is not entitled to an intestate share of the estate under 20 Pa.C.S. § 2507(4), and preliminary objections to the child’s petition for declaratory judgment were properly granted. Estate of Sidney Rothberg, 2017 PA Super 198 (6/23/2017), aff’g No. 673 AP of 2009 (Philadelphia O.C. 9/8/2016). [Previous decisions involving this same estate.]
It was error for the Orphans’ Court to fail to grant a continuance to a parent to obtain counsel in a proceeding to terminate his parental rights when the parent failed to request counsel from the court but three of the five sets of notices received by the parent instructed the parent to contact the local legal services agency, which the parent did and was told that they do not represent parties in custody matters. In Re: Adoption of C.A.S., 2017 PA Super 193 (6/21/2017).