An accounting is the fiduciary's formal report to the court and beneficiaries. It is the primary mechanism of accountability in Pennsylvania fiduciary law and the foundation upon which the court makes its decree of distribution.
Accounts must conform to the Model Accounts in the Rules Appendix and include:
Principal and income must be accounted for separately. All dates, sources of receipts, recipients of disbursements, and purposes must be stated.
The Clerk of the Orphans' Court (not the attorney) is responsible for advertising notice of accounts filed and the time and place of the audit call (20 Pa.C.S. § 745(a)). But the accountant must separately give written notice of the filing and audit date to every unpaid claimant and every person known to have an interest in the estate (Pa.O.C. Rule 2.5, Bucks O.C. Rule 6.3A).
At the audit, one of three things happens:
This is the most important paper presented at audit. It is prepared using the specific forms on the Bucks County Register of Wills/Clerk website (different forms for decedent's estates, trusts, and guardianships). The petition forms the basis for the court's adjudication or decree of distribution and must provide all factual information necessary for a proper award. The petition must:
Audit & Adjudication Checklist
Objections must be filed on or before the time and date of the audit, with a copy sent to the accountant's counsel and each interested party. Each objection must be specific as to description and amount, raise one issue of law or fact, and briefly state the supporting reasons. Preliminary objections to objections are limited to lack of jurisdiction and lack of standing (Rule 2.8(b)).
In re Estate of Bates, 28 Pa. D. & C.5th 19 (Monroe Cty. O.C. 2013) — Addresses the Orphans' Court treatment of casualty insurance proceeds tied to specifically devised property. When a specifically devised asset (e.g., the family home) is destroyed before the testator's death, does the beneficiary receive the insurance proceeds as a substitute under 20 Pa.C.S. § 2514 (the ademption exception)? Bates is the leading discussion of this issue. If you're handling an estate where a devised property was damaged or destroyed and insurance was paid, this case controls the analysis.
Styer v. Hugo, 619 A.2d 347 (Pa. Super. 1993), aff'd, 637 A.2d 276 (Pa. 1994) — The clean three-part test for unjust enrichment in Pennsylvania: (1) the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant, (2) the defendant appreciated the benefit, and (3) acceptance and retention of the benefit under the circumstances would be inequitable without payment. This arises in estate and fiduciary contexts when a person provided care, services, or financial support to a decedent expecting compensation that the estate refuses to honor. Styer is the go-to citation for the elements. See also SJW Home Ass'n v. Georgine's Knights, Inc., No. 2380 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Oct. 12, 2022) (non-precedential memorandum applying unjust enrichment in a property context — useful for its fact pattern and analysis, but must be identified as non-precedential under Pa. I.O.P. § 65.37 and cited only for persuasive value).
Free consultations available for most practice areas.
Schedule a Free Consultation Or call 215-826-3133