{"id":9884,"date":"2023-07-28T12:33:32","date_gmt":"2023-07-28T16:33:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=9884"},"modified":"2023-07-28T12:37:33","modified_gmt":"2023-07-28T16:37:33","slug":"beneficiaries-had-standing-whether-accounts-were-in-trust-for-or-joint","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=9884","title":{"rendered":"Beneficiaries Had Standing Whether Accounts Were &#8220;In Trust For&#8221; or Joint"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The beneficiaries of certificates of deposits which were originally alleged to be &#8220;in trust for\u201d accounts, and which had been held to give them standing to challenge actions of decedent\u2019s agents who removed the beneficiary designations before the decedent\u2019s death, continued to have standing even though the accounts were later found to be joint accounts, because both types of accounts are testamentary in nature and the beneficiaries had the same interest in litigating the breach of fiduciary duty by the agents acting under a durable power of attorney. \u00a0<em>Rellick v. Rellick-Smith<\/em>, <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/assets\/opinions\/Superior\/out\/J-A02018-23m%20-%20105539759224702803.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">630 WDA 2022<\/a> (Pa. Super. 5\/17\/2023) (non-precedential).  (For <a href=\"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=4101\">an earlier opinion in this case, first addressing the issue of standing<\/a>, see <em>Rellick v. Rellick-Smith<\/em>, 147 A.3d 897,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/assets\/opinions\/Superior\/out\/J-A13037-16o%20-%201027800348678697.pdf\">2016 PA Super 184<\/a>\u00a0(Pa.Super. 8\/22\/2016).)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The beneficiaries of certificates of deposits which were originally alleged to be &#8220;in trust for\u201d accounts, and which had been held to give them standing to challenge actions of decedent\u2019s agents who removed the beneficiary designations before the decedent\u2019s death, &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=9884\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[297,252,156,371],"class_list":["post-9884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-opinions","tag-joint-tenancy","tag-multiple-party-account-act","tag-standing","tag-tentative-trusts","pmpro-has-access"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9884","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9884"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9884\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9889,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9884\/revisions\/9889"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}