{"id":8538,"date":"2021-03-26T10:00:30","date_gmt":"2021-03-26T14:00:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=8538"},"modified":"2021-03-26T10:01:25","modified_gmt":"2021-03-26T14:01:25","slug":"comments-to-proposed-amendment-to-pa-o-c-rule-10-5a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=8538","title":{"rendered":"Comments to Proposed Amendment to Pa.O.C. Rule 10.5(a)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The following comments have been submitted to the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee on the proposed rule change for notice by successor personal representatives<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

March 26, 2021<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pamela S. Walker, Counsel
Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Judicial Center
PO Box 62635
Harrisburg, PA 17106-2635<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Via Email orphanscourtproceduralrules@pacourts.us<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Re: Proposed Amendment of Rule 10.5 of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules, 51 Pa.B. 1651 (3\/27\/2021)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dear Ms. Walker:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I agree with the general principle that a notice of estate administration should be given to interested parties when there is a change in personal representatives, just as a notice to current trust beneficiaries is required under 20 Pa.C.S. \u00a7 7780.3(g) whenever there is a change in trustees, but I think that there are two weaknesses in the proposed change to Rule 10.5(a).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first weakness is that the proposed reference to \u201ca personal representative to whom letters have been granted\u201d and the reference in the amended note to \u201call personal representatives\u201d when taken together would suggest that, when two personal representatives are granted letters, both must give notice. That would be unnecessary, and I think that the problem is in the wording of the note and not the wording of the rule itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The other weakness is that there can be a change in personal representatives without a grant of letters. For example, it is possible for letters to be granted to two persons and for one of them to die during the administration of the estate, leaving the survivor to serve as sole personal representative. While there is currently no rule or statute allowing the resignation of a personal representative, it may be possible for a will to allow the resignation of a co-executor. Regardless of how it might happen, I think the loss of a personal representative is also worthy of a notice to interested parties, just as the loss of a co-trustee would require notice under \u00a7 7780.3(g).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My final comment is that the phrase \u201cto whom letters have been granted\u201d seems superfluous because a personal representative is necessarily a person to whom letters have been granted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would therefore suggest the following changes in the wording of the rule and the note:<\/p>\n\n\n\n