Category Archives: Probate & Estate Administration

Medicaid Estate Recovery in Pennsylvania

Alberts Law, Probate & Estate Administration, ,

In 1993, the federal government enacted a law requiring states to create estate recovery programs for repayment of long-term care costs covered by Medicaid (which also is known as Medical Assistance in Pennsylvania). How to do this was left to each state to decide, for the most part. As people are living longer, they often live their final days in nursing homes. Pennsylvania’s Medicaid Estate Recovery Program places an emphasis on recouping costs for nursing-home care, as well as home and community-based services that can be covered by Medicaid under a waiver authorized through the Social Security Act because these are provided to avoid having to place a person in an institution such as a nursing home. The third focus of estate recovery involves Medicaid payments for related hospital and prescription drug services that accompany the two other categories of services. The Medicaid Estate Recovery Program can be a major concern during the administration of an estate and could be an important consideration in estate-planning decisions, too.

Medicaid estate recovery targets estates of deceased individuals who received the services previously mentioned after they turned 55 and needed assistance from Medicaid to pay the bills. Pennsylvania generally requires repayment from these estates so the decedent’s personal representative (commonly known as the executor when there is a Will or the administrator when the decedent died without a Will) must be aware of this possibility.

The key here is whether or not the decedent was on Medicaid during the last five years of her or his life. If you are the personal representative and you know this was the case, then you must send a letter containing with specific information that the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) requires. Then, in general, DPW has 45 days to send you a Notice of Claim. Depending on the circumstances, the agency is not confined to making a claim regarding only the prior five years. If Medicaid paid for nursing-home services before this period, then DPW’s claim could go further back.

In addition, when you are the personal representative, you have to look at the 5-year period. You would have an ethical obligation to notify DPW if you are aware of Medicaid payments that actually occurred for the targeted services more than five years ago, as long as the individual was 55 or older period that period of time.

After DPW provide notice of its claim, you could appeal this at an administrative hearing. If the Department’s claim survives, then the recovery phase begins. It can make its claim against all property (both real and personal) that could be administered by a personal representative, even if the personal representative decides not to administer some of the estate’s property. So, if you are the personal representative, you cannot shield property that is in the estate by ignoring it.

On the other hand, most property that does not have to go through the estate process cannot be claimed by DPW. This would include property owned jointly with survivorship rights (or owned by spouses through a tenancy by the entireties). Life insurance that is paid directly to a named beneficiary also avoids the DPW claim, but the same policy – when payable to the estate – can be recovered. Assets in a testamentary trust, which is created by a Will, are subject to DPW’s claim; assets in a trust created by the decedent prior to the individual’s death escape the recovery program as long as they are not payable to the estate. This can be important to remember when an estate plan is being drafted.

Another point that you should remember if you are in charge of the estate is that DPW has a claim to estate property but does not have a lien against it through the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program. Anyone with a lien on property has priority versus DPW’s claim, which, unlike a lien, is unsecured. Among claims to payment from the estate, DPW’s claim only is in the third category, and that is limited to Medicaid payments made during the person’s last six months. Any other claims by DPW are relegated to the sixth payment class.

We have gone through some of the basics concerning Medicaid estate recovery. There are others that bear mentioning whether you are the personal representative in charge of administering an estate or you are a person setting up an estate plan that you want to provide as much to your chosen beneficiaries and as little to the government as possible. These factors raise such issues as the duty to protect DPW’s claim when the transfer of estate property is involved, the timing of transfers prior to going to a nursing home as well as prior to death, and the possibility of postponing or even waiving claims under Medicaid estate recovery when you would be an heir. I will touch on these topics next time. You should keep in mind that this can be a complex area of law so you probably should discuss them in more depth with an attorney if any of these subjects applies to a situation in which you are involved.

 

Responsibilities of the Trustee of a Trust

Alberts Law, Probate & Estate Administration, ,

Depending on the size and the purpose of a trust, the grantor (sometimes called the settlor) who established the trust may decide upon a relative or a close associate to act as the trustee of that trust. If you are chosen to handle this responsibility, you need to understand what you will be required of you before you take on this role.

The basic reason why a trust has to have a trustee is because the document that the grantor used to create the trust will convey that person’s intention(s) regarding how the assets in the trust are to be used on behalf of its beneficiaries. Some trusts are created to minimize taxes and preserves more assets to pass to the ultimate beneficiaries; the so-called “generation-skipping” trust might be used to accomplish this.

Other people may want to take care of needs of a child who has a disability which entitles the child to certain types of government assistance. However, direct payments from the trust could reduce this assistance while payments for financial or health needs might take the place of items that the government, otherwise, would have provided. To prevent these possibilities, the grantor might establish what is known as a “supplemental needs” trust for the child. Whatever the intention stated by the grantor in the trust document, the trustee must understand it, must understand how to manage the trust’s assets to carry it out, and must be willing to do so.

You generally have to follow the directions of the trust’s creator. You only have discretion to make decisions that are permitted in the trust instrument. A supplemental needs trust would give a trustee a certain amount of discretion, but you have to read the document to be sure. Other trust instruments can contain very specific criteria for the manner in which the principal and interest that comprise the trust’s assets are to be distributed. If language regarding discretionary decision making is nowhere to be found, then you have no authority to deviate from the grantor’s instructions.

In addition to the grantor’s intentions, a trustee must remember that the role always carries fiduciary duties. This means that you must act for the benefit of others, who are defined by the grantor’s intent in setting up the trust. Among those duties are good faith, candor, and loyalty.

There also is the duty to treat beneficiaries impartially (unless the trust’s language expresses a different intent), as well as a duty to balance the interests of the lifetime beneficiaries with those of the remainder persons (who would receive what remains in the trust at its termination). You have to keep beneficiaries updated periodically with an accounting of the trust’s performance. Meanwhile, as a fiduciary, you must avoid self-dealing in addition to conflicts of interest that could undermine your ability to act in the best interests of beneficiaries. Trustees can be held liable when fiduciary duties are breached.

For trusts governed by Pennsylvania law, trustees must understand the Prudent Investor Rule, which was enacted in 1999. Its general rule is as follows: “A fiduciary shall invest and manage property held in a trust as a prudent investor would, by considering the purposes, terms and other circumstances of the trust and by pursuing an overall investment strategy reasonably suited to the trust.” The Prudent Investor Rule also defines permissible investments of a trust and considerations when making investment and management decisions.

This law does allow you to delegate investment and management decisions if someone with skills comparable to yours might do so. You will not be responsible for your agent’s investment decisions when you can show that you used reasonable care, skill, and caution in selecting the agent and you have reviewed periodically the agent’s performance and compliance with the terms of the delegated duties. Any trustee without sufficient investment experience would be wise at least to consider seeking professional advice when investing the assets of the trust so that distributions can be made and expenses can be paid while taxation of the trust is minimized to the extent possible. Obviously, the job of a trustee is not an easy one.

As you undertake these and other actions as a trustee, you generally are entitled to some compensation, defined in the trust instrument, as well as reimbursement for legitimate expenses. Again, you are a fiduciary so you must act in good faith and not inflate these expenses, for example. You always face being held accountable for your actions and could end up being ordered by a court to repay improper payments. If you go too far, the court could remove you as the trustee.

While all of these factors may make being a successful trustee an impossible task, you should remember that many trusts exist and each has, at least, one trustee. The vast majority of trustees handle the role without great difficulty. You simply must understand what is expected of you and know how to carry out your obligations. If you have doubts, you should consult with an attorney with experience in this area to discuss what you need to do to be a successful trustee.

Responsibility for Inheritance Tax

Alberts Law, Estate Planning, Probate & Estate Administration, , ,

In Pennsylvania, inheritance tax basically is a tax on your right to receive property of someone who has died. The tax rate is based on which class of beneficiary that you are in. For example, the spousal rate currently is zero percent while transfers to brothers and sisters face a tax rate of 12 percent. Because inheritance tax is assessed on a “transferee” having the right to receive property and the amount of the tax is calculated based on this person’s relationship to the decedent, an argument could be made that transferees, who are the individuals receiving the property, should be taxed. This also is reality, although they usually do not file returns or pay the tax directly to Pennsylvania.

According to Pennsylvania law, the estate’s personal representative (who also is called the administrator or the executor) must file the inheritance tax return that would include property of the decedent over which he or she had control, as well as any other property of which the personal representative has knowledge and that will be subject to inheritance tax when it is transferred. Simply put, the personal representative has the primary responsibility to file the return.

However, complications do arise. If the personal representative does not file an inheritance tax return or does not include property that you received as a transferee, then you are responsible for filing a return regarding that property and also for paying the inheritance tax. Remember that, ultimately, inheritance tax is based on a person’s right to receive estate property, and rights come with obligations. You have the responsibility to pay the inheritance tax on this property when the personal representative fails to do so. For example, a personal representative could exclude a beneficiary in the inheritance tax return when the property was owned jointly with the right of survivorship by the decedent and someone other than a spouse. The personal representative can fill in a circle on the return which states that the survivor, who automatically becomes owner of the entire amount, is to be billed separately by Pennsylvania’s Department of Revenue. The survivor needs to file a return and pay the inheritance tax on the portion that had been owned by the decedent.

The usual situation will involve the personal representative writing the check for the amount of inheritance tax owed, though. While the inheritance tax statute places the “ultimate liability” for payment on the transferee who receives the property, Section 9144 (entitled “Source of payment”) of Pennsylvania’s Fiscal Code, also specifies that the inheritance tax generally is to be paid by the personal representative from the residuary estate (which is what remains after all debts, expenses, claims, and testamentary gifts have been paid out).

If the personal representative does not pay the inheritance tax, then anyone receiving the residuary estate is supposed to pay it. Ultimately, if none of these individuals makes the payment, anyone who received property from the estate will be liable for paying the inheritance tax on the value of what she or he received. This is why you are said to have “ultimate liability” regarding anything that was transferred from the estate to you.

Because the possibility of receiving property from an estate often seems to bring out the worst in people, you might want to consider eliminating as many potential controversies involving the estate that you eventually will leave. An estate plan can be used to make clear how any inheritance tax on your estate is to be paid. This is why a Last Will and Testament commonly includes a clause directing how the inheritance tax, as well as other costs that can typically arise when a person is dying and other common costs after death, are to be handled by the individual who will be in charge of the estate. Setting forth your clear intent regarding payment of inheritance tax ensures that one possible estate controversy is eliminated. At the very least, this shows how good estate planning can prevent a hard time from becoming even harder for your family and friends.

Complications While Same-Sex Marriage Is Banned in Pennsylvania

Alberts Law, Debt Relief & Bankruptcy, Probate & Estate Administration, Topics of Interest, ,
[Note: On May 20, 2014, Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania actually issued the decision in Whitehead v. Wolf, in which he ruled as he anticipated the U.S. Supreme Court would rule. In short, based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, he determined that Pennsylvania could not justify its law banning same-sex marriages. He also entered an injunction against the enforcement of Pennsylvania’s law that was effective as of that date. The Commonwealth did not appeal so May 20, 2014 is the official date that Pennsylvania became part of the tidal wave of states across the nation that, willingly or not, recognized the legality of same-sex marriages.]

 

In Pennsylvania, same-sex marriage does not is against the law. Specifically, in the Domestic Relations Code, the legislature defines marriage as a “contract between one man and one woman” (Section 1102). Unlike its position on common-law marriage that was discussed in the previous post, it also has rejected the concept of comity, in which the laws of other states usually are recognized and respected. Instead, the legislature has invoked the “strong and longstanding public policy” exception to comity in Section 1704 of the Domestic Relations Code so that same-sex marriages, “even if valid where entered into,” are void here.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United   States v. Windsor, et. al. from June of this year may be the start of major changes throughout the country. Windsor dealt with the federal Defense of Marriage Act, in which Congress defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The case concerned two women who were married legally in Canada and then moved to New York, which recognized their marriage. The widowed spouse was the beneficiary in the Will, but the IRS forced her to pay the federal estate tax even though a spouse would have been exempt from this tax. With Ms. Windsor believing that she faced unequal treatment due to her gender, she filed the lawsuit that ended up in the Supreme Court. In what was a landmark decision to put it mildly, the Court found the federal definition of marriage unconstitutional, basing this decision mostly on due process grounds.

Marriage generally is a state-law issue. Windsor does not alter this but does affect federal rights and benefits of legally married spouses of the same gender. Changing the type of marriage found in the example in the previous post from a common-law marriage to a validly entered same-sex marriage, the couple who got married legally in Washington, D.C. can remain same-sex partners but no longer are considered spouses when they relocate in Pennsylvania.

While federal law usually supersedes state law, some issues – including marital and property rights – have been left to the states in most circumstances. This is where Windsor leaves many unanswered questions. The Social Security Administration made an effort to deal with this by issuing regulations after the Windsor decision. In the example, the SSA instructs the person who married in Washington, D.C. and then became a Pennsylvania resident to apply for benefits on the work record of her same-gender spouse when eligible because the marriage originally was valid.

Due to residency in Pennsylvania when she applies, the SSA currently will put a hold on the application, but the application does establish the protective filing date for benefits that may be paid later if the same-sex marriage that does not exist in Pennsylvania becomes valid again as it was when the couple resided in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, had the surviving partner stayed in Washington, D.C., she could receive benefits now.

Bankruptcy law also relies on state law to define numerous rights, including property rights during marriage. Pennsylvania allows people filing for bankruptcy to choose to use federal or state exemptions for property. When a married couple owns their property as tenants by the entireties, this effectively prevents a spouse from transferring any ownership interest to a third party and generally puts the property out of reach for creditors of only one spouse. If most debt belongs to one spouse, the couple may decide that only that spouse will file, using the state exemptions to protect their joint property. However, a tenancy by the entireties can exist only when there is a valid marriage. Pennsylvania, by declaring same-sex marriage void, prohibits a same-sex couple from owning property in this way. Once again, there is different treatment at this point under federal law and under state law for individuals who, but for their genders, would be in the same situation.

Estates also are affected by marital status. Pennsylvania law gives rights to a surviving spouse preventing this spouse from being disinherited due to a deceased spouse’s Will. However, a person who entered into a same-sex marriage prior to settling in Pennsylvania becomes a virtual stranger regarding estate rights when the other person dies – the individual would not have the rights of a spouse. Instead, a Will would need to identify the person and specifically leave property to him or her (although the survivor essentially receives any part of the estate as a friend, not a spouse).

Also, Windsor provided that, regardless of gender, Ms. Windsor was a spouse and would be treated the same as other spouses under federal estate tax law, dropping her tax rate to zero percent as a result. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s inheritance-tax rate for a spouse is also zero percent, but, due to a same-sex marriage being void, an unrelated person of the same gender receiving property through a Will falls into the 15-percent tax bracket. In each of these situations, we see different treatment solely due to gender. Such issues will remain as long as same-sex marriage is rejected in Pennsylvania.

Next year could be a watershed year for Pennsylvania marriage law due to numerous court cases that involve possible recognition of same-sex marriages. A change could come soon after June when Whitewood v. Wolf, which directly attacks Pennsylvania’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage, is scheduled to be heard in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The ban on same-sex marriage and its resulting complications easily could be history in Pennsylvania before 2014 ends. Time – and, most likely, the courts – will tell.

The Status of Common-Law Marriage in Pennsylvania

Alberts Law, Debt Relief & Bankruptcy, Probate & Estate Administration, Topics of Interest, , ,

Until January 2, 2005, a woman and a man in Pennsylvania could consider marrying each other without any type of ceremony or written documentation. There was not even any requirement that they lived together for any amount of time, despite a common belief to the contrary. Basically, if there was no reason why they could not marry, such as being too young or being currently married to someone else, they basically needed to exchange words in the present tense – without even needing witnesses – showing that they intended to establish the relationship of wife and husband, and a common-law marriage was created.

A marriage created in this way could create difficulties when one had to prove the date of the marriage or, even, its very existence. As a result, courts made an issue of the problems with marriages that could exist without any documentation. A 1998 decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made clear that the common-law marriage certainly was disfavored but that the legislature would have to act to abolish the practice. Then, in 2003, due to the lack of legislative action, the Commonwealth Court took it upon itself to act in place of the legislature and decided that common-law marriage no longer existed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, all that this really did was to create more confusion.

With a Pennsylvania court saying one thing and the legislature saying nothing, the government needed to clarify what the law really was. Finally, the legislature passed a statute preventing anyone from attempting to create a common-law marriage beginning with the day after New Year’s Day in 2005. This did not invalidate such unions that took place through January 1, 2005, thereby ensuring that a possible common-law marriage that either the man or the woman involved asserted had occurred prior to the cutoff date still could prove troublesome. However, even with Pennsylvania’s abolition of the right to enter into a common-law marriage, problems caused by this concept remain.

Beyond the difficulties presented by a possible common-law marriage created in Pennsylvania prior to the beginning of 2005, there are problems because some states continue to permit a woman and a man to enter into this type of marriage at this point. They include Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only), Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah (which does add the requirement of an administrative order regarding the marriage), and Washington, D.C.  A com威而鋼
mon-law marriage from any of these states eventually could have an impact in Pennsylvania. While the reason often is thought to be the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the federal Constitution, this is not involved. Instead the concept of comity is the cause.

Through comity, states generally recognize and respect the laws of other states as long as the law is not deemed offensive to public policy in a particular state. Since Pennsylvania has long favored the institution of marriage (between men and women), it continues to recognize common-law marriage, despite the problems with proof that led to practice being abolished here, as long as the marriage occurred in one of the states where it was valid. Although it could not be created here, public policy in Pennsylvania favors marriage so it remains valid as long as it was valid from its beginning.

Therefore, a woman and a man could enter into a common-law marriage in Washington, D.C. in 2011 and then move to Pennsylvania. If the marriage was valid in the District of Columbia, the comity doctrine continues its validity here.

This means that these spouses will have the same rights and obligations that other married couples have in Pennsylvania. They will remain married until death – or until a divorce. While entering a common-law marriage has none of the formalities of a ceremonial marriage, its ending can occur only in the same way that any other marriage can end. Because a divorce is required while both spouses are alive, there can be equitable distribution of marital property. Meanwhile, the death of one of the spouses leaves the other with the same inheritance rights as any other surviving spouse in Pennsylvania has.

In addition, because the marriage is valid, there are rights to payments from the Social Security Administration that can vest when a spouse retires if they have been married for at least ten years. A common-law marriage also affects a bankruptcy. If one spouse basically has all of the debt while property, such as a residence, is owned as tenants by the entireties in Pennsylvania, then the bankruptcy law can be used to protect the house, with only the spouse with the debts filing for bankruptcy to get a fresh start by having these debts discharged. The marriage may have begun elsewhere, but – by the time that the couple has arrived in Pennsylvania – the fact that it was a common-law marriage in the beginning is of no consequence, regardless of Pennsylvania’s abolishing the right to enter into such marriages years ago.

In the next post, we will see another married couple that relocates from Washington, D.C. to Pennsylvania but finds the consequences much different. Instead of a common-law marriage, we’ll look at a couple that has gone through a ceremonial marriage after obtaining a marriage license, making the marriage much easier to prove. This won’t matter once they move to Pennsylvania, where they will be treated as if they virtually are strangers to one another. Their “problem” is that they happen to share not only their lives but also the same gender. The evolving area of law of same-sex marriage and its current (and possible future) implications in our changing society will be examined.

Possible Liability of the Personal Representative of an Estate and How to Avoid It

Alberts Law, Probate & Estate Administration, , ,

The personal representative (known as the executor when a Last Will is being probated or the administrator when a person died without a Last Will) is in charge of handling a decedent’s estate, with one of the major responsibilities being the payment of debts owed by the estate. The personal representative should not pay any debts or distribute any assets until determining if the estate is solvent, what debts exist, and whether or not all of the bills can be paid.

The reason for this is simple: the personal representative can have liability to a creditor that cannot be paid because property was distributed to a beneficiary or heir and also can be liable for an overpayment if a creditor receives more than it should have. Either way, the personal representative would be responsible for making up the difference to creditors that were underpaid.

However, if you end up being the personal representative of an estate, you can avoid any problem with liability by following the path set forth in the applicable laws. When you take the oath to be the estate’s personal representative, you are granted letters to administer the estate. Pennsylvania law requires you to advertise the grant of letters in a local newspaper of general circulation and the designated legal periodical for publishing such notices (for example, the Pittsburgh Legal Journal for Allegheny County).

In general, creditors with unsecured claims (basically, debts for which no estate property is collateral for any debt) have one year from the date of the first full advertisement of the grant of letters to give you notice of their claims. If they fail to do so, then estate property can be distributed without any liability for these claims.

It should be noted that two types of claims are treated specially under the notice requirements when applicable, and you must follow the requirements to avoid potential liability. These include claims that are owed to the Commonwealth or any political subdivision for maintenance of the decedent in an institution in which the decedent died as well as claims owed to the Commonwealth for medical assistance paid on behalf of a decedent for all nursing facility services, home and community-based services, and related hospital and prescription drug services. Both involve time periods that are shorter than one year and require that you inform them of the grant of letters.

Also, an exception is made for any “secured” claim, in which there is estate property that guarantees payment of the claim (up to the value of the property that acts as security for the repayment). This has to be paid even if no notice is given so your potential liability would equal the secured value. Beyond the amount of the secured claim, any additional amount is treated as other unsecured debts are in terms of payment and liability.

When an estate’s assets are not sufficient to pay all of the estate’s debts, Pennsylvania law establishes the order of payment of unsecured claims, which also means liability to the personal representative if debts are paid in the wrong order, leaving debts that should have been paid outstanding. The order is as follows: (1) costs of administration of the estate; (2) the family exemption provided under Pennsylvania law; (3) costs of the decedent’s funeral and burial, costs of medicines furnished to the decedent within six months of death, costs of medical and nursing services (including costs of services furnished under the Commonwealth’s medical assistance program) performed for the decedent within that time, and costs of services performed for the decedent by any of employees within that time; (4) the cost of a grave marker; (5) rent for the occupancy of the decedent’s residence for six months immediately prior to death; (5.1) claims by the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions; and (6) all other claims.

No claim within each class has priority over others in the same class, but claims in a higher ranking class must be paid before payments to the classes that follow. Otherwise, the personal representative faces liability for making improper payments. Also, when an estate is unable to pay all of its debts, the personal representative must pay claims owed to the federal government according to the priority established under federal law. Personal representatives who do not give federal claims their proper priority have liability for these claims if they are not paid.

If you are in charge of an insolvent estate, which cannot pay all of its debts as a result, you can avoid the problems that can arise in this situation by taking necessary precautions to protect against payment mistakes that can trigger liability. For example, a distribution to a beneficiary or heir that is not done with court approval is an “at risk” distribution; if you decide to do this, you at least should have the recipient sign an indemnification agreement requiring repayment to the estate if the property later is needed to pay debts; otherwise, you will be found liable for the incorrect payment. However, the safest course – especially with an insolvent estate – is to prevent personal liability for any distributions simply by not acting until the court approves your proposed actions. You also should consider retaining an estate attorney to help you through this process and its potential minefields.

The Self-Proving Affidavit: A Valuable Addition to Your Will

Alberts Law, Estate Planning, Probate & Estate Administration, , , ,

Most people are aware of the benefits of having a Last Will and Testament. It can make the flow of your property to your chosen beneficiaries proceed much more smoothly as well as allowing you to decide who you want in charge of the process. There are other potential benefits from having this estate planning tool in place when the time comes for the administration of your estate, but the process involved in the preparation of your Last Will holds a key to getting the probate of a Will started smoothly. This involves the inclusion of a self-proving affidavit. 

Once your attorney has finished drafting your Will, you need to sign it at the end of the last page. After doing so, you have a valid legal document that will set forth your estate plan. The absence of witnesses does not affect this because Pennsylvania law does not require anyone to be present when you sign to show that you are the testator and that the document is your Last Will and Testament. However, there have to be two people who can verify that your signature appears at the bottom of the Will when the probate process is being started. The person named as executor in your Will would have to find two people to do this if you did not have witnesses at the time that you signed the Will. If there were witnesses, the executor needs to attempt to find them and, if not possible, would have file an affidavit of diligent search and look for a substitute for each missing witness to take the oath verifying your signature when your Will is to be submitted for probate. If no one who can make the identification can be found, then proof of the signatures of the original witnesses will be satisfactory. A self-proving affidavit makes these possible problems disappear.

This reduces the stress and difficulties at some future time and is easily accomplished if your witnesses are ready to sign after they watch you add your signature at the end of your Will. A self-proving affidavit simply involves the witnesses acknowledging that they saw you do this. In general, the witnesses then sign the self-proving affidavit in front of an officer authorized to administer oaths in Pennsylvania – usually, this person will be a notary public. However, if the testator’s signature and this self-proving affidavit signed by two witnesses are undertaken with only an attorney present, then the attorney must prepare a certification of attorney to be included as part of your Will. In either situation, no one will need to hunt for witnesses in the future.

This is main benefit of having a self-proving affidavit attached to a Will. Your executor can take the Will for probate at the appropriate time without any need to try to find witnesses at a time that may be many years after you first was executed this document, when it can be difficult to find these people for any number of reasons. This makes the executor’s job – w犀利士
hich may be quite involved and could require years to complete – a little easier at the beginning, at least.