Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
215 results for '* topic:"Trusts and Estates"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-10-17
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 77 of 2012, O.C.
The court granted a motion for reconsideration in part and denied it in part finding that the court had properly considered all relevant facts when appointing an attorney as a co-guardian of an incapacitated person's estate and person. The court noted that because petitioner raised no new facts, a motion for reconsideration was not the proper vehicle to simply present an argument for the second time.
Publication Date: 2022-10-03
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Lazarus
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 415 WDA 2021
Orphan's court erred in granting trust beneficiary's request for injunctive relief preventing trustees from using trust assets to pay legal fees and in enjoining trustee from exercising any special power of appointment under the trust because orphans' court failed to either hold a hearing or make a finding of immediate and irreparable injury and trustee's exercise of her nonfiduciary special power of appointment was separate and distinct from her duties as a fiduciary. Order vacated.
Publication Date: 2022-10-03
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry: Insurance | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Covey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 749 C.D. 2021
Order dismissing estate's claim to annuity funds vacated where the record did not permit a conclusive determination as to whether an orphans' court decree against the annuity company governed the annuity funds, which could subject them to attachment while in the treasury's custody. Order of the treasury department vacated, case remanded.
Publication Date: 2022-09-26
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
Judge: Judge Williamson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 001961-CV-2019
Court granted motion to dismiss matter arising out of a family dispute regarding a life tenancy on a decedent's property. The court granted the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the administrator of the estate failed to file the complaint within the applicable statute of limitations. The court further granted the motion on the grounds that the administrator simply speculated that decedent suffered damages but otherwise failed to produce any appraisals, facts, or figures which supported the claim.
Publication Date: 2022-09-26
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry: Education | Non-Profit
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Murray
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1269 WDA 2021
Orphans' Court properly denied appellant university and trust beneficiary's motion to terminate the trust because appellant had not proven the existence of "administrative expense or other burdens unreasonably out of proportion to the charitable benefits" as required by 20 Pa.C.S.A. §7740.3(e). Affirmed.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Shari L. Klevens, Alanna G. Clair
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-08-29
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Alejandro
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0971
Beneficiaries/heirs of IRA account proceeds lacked standing to assert mismanagement claims against the individual who managed the account on behalf of the deceased account holder, where such alleged mismanagement only impacted the account holder, not the beneficiaries. Defendant's motion to dismiss granted.
Publication Date: 2022-08-29
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
Judge: Judge Fritsch
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0931
Court requested that the Orphans' Court order denying a petition to remove an estate's administrator be affirmed. Specifically, the court emphasized the fact that the court is granted the discretion with reviewing an administrator's capacity, and in this instant matter, although the administrator had Parkinson's Disease, his condition did not further limit his cognitive or physical abilities.
Publication Date: 2022-07-25
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Linhardt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0754
There was sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that decedent destroyed or revoked his original will, which could not be found, where the testator properly executed the original will, the contents of that will were substantially the same as the copy presented and the testator had not destroyed or revoked the will prior to his death. The court granted a petition to submit a will photocopy to probate, subject to the two-witness rule.
Publication Date: 2022-07-18
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Fayette County
Judge: Judge Creany
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0724
Court grants motion to dismiss claims arising from a father's will which failed to bequeath property to his children and instead named his friend as the main beneficiary. Although the daughter of the testator brought a claim for legal malpractice, the court noted Pennsylvania law was clear that only an individual who had an attorney-client relationship with an attorney could bring a claim against a lawyer. In this case, the plaintiff had never had an attorney-client relationship with the attorney who drafted testator's will. The court
Publication Date: 2022-07-11
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Wecht
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0750
Superior court erred in allowing wife to revoke her election against the testator's will more than three years after her original election because the time limit in subsection 2210(b) was clear as was the intent it embodied. Reversed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read