ESTATE OF ANNA E. FRIDENBERG, DECEASED APPEAL OF: WACHOVIA BANK

ESTATE OF ANNA E. FRIDENBERG, DECEASED APPEAL OF: WACHOVIA BANK, N.A. No. 2119 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 164 Atlantic: 982 A.2d 68 Petition for Reargument Denied 10/30/2009 Filed: 8/24/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered July 1, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Orphans’ Court, No. 261 of 1941
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Dissenting Opinion Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Appellant, Wachovia Bank, N.A., appeals from the order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Orphans’ Court Division, denying its application for certain commissions on trust principal as compensation for trust administration services. Appellant challenges the Orphans’ Court’s conclusion that such commissions were barred by In re Williamson’s Estate, 82 A.2d 49 (Pa. 1951). We reverse the order of the Orphans’ Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 7/25/08 - IN RE: ESTATE OF CELINA FIELD

IN RE: ESTATE OF CELINA FIELDAPPEAL OF: AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, BENEFICIARY UNDER THE LIVING TRUST OF CELINA FIELD, ECEASED
No. 2128 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 167 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/25/2008
Appeal from the Decree entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Civil Division, No(s): 126 O.C. 2004
Before: BOWES, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) appeals the July 12, 2007, Decree ordering the distribution of assets in the Celina Field Living Trust in accordance with a trust amendment, the validity of which constitutes the genesis of this controversy.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

ACS’ attempt to analogize the law of wills with the law of trusts by
resorting to general pronouncements is unpersuasive. ACS is correct in its
assertion that a will is only valid when signed, marked, or signed by a thirdparty
at the direction of the testator. 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502, supra. The issue
of whether a will has been executed validly, nevertheless, has no bearing on
the issue of whether a trust amendment is valid. There is no support in our
caselaw for the proposition that a trust amendment must be signed by the
settlor simply because “the right to amend…is personal to the Settlor.”
Appellant’s brief at 16. To the contrary, in 2002 and 2003, when decedent
settled her living trust and when the various amendments thereto were
drafted, personalty trust agreements themselves did not have to be written
and signed, or otherwise executed, to be effective. Dotterer, supra at 954,
citing In re Estate of Trbovich, 488 Pa. 583, 413 A.2d 379 (1980); cf. 20
Pa.C.S.A. § 7732, Requirements for creation. More to the point, the law
governing how revocable trusts can be amended has been consistent
throughout this Commonwealth’s history, and nothing in this history requires
a trust amendment to be executed before it is deemed valid. Kaufmann,
supra at 211 (“[A] revocable or amendable trust can only be revoked or
amended in accordance with the terms of the trust.”)