MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

Initiative in Practice

Articles by Our Attorneys

Old Codes, New Projects: Navigating Pennsylvania’s Outdated Zoning Ordinances

by Leave a Comment

Pennsylvania has 2,560 local municipalities, each with their own local ordinances and zoning code.

While Pennsylvania’s 67 counties are required to produce and update their comprehensive plans every ten years, local municipalities are not held to a specific timeline to update their zoning code. Local governing bodies and zoning boards are often made up of elected officials or volunteers with varying backgrounds who may have little familiarity with developing a comprehensive plan or a zoning code.

Often, municipal officials are without the knowledge and/or resources to facilitate a large-scale update of their zoning code on a frequent or routine basis. Municipalities who do not have the resources to perform a complete update, may piece together updated provisions as they come up as if they are building Frankenstein’s monster – which can result in gruesome and inconsistent zoning code. As a result, zoning applicants sometimes find themselves trying to shoehorn an Airbnb into a zoning code that was written just as an in-home VCR was becoming popular. The result can be costly and maddening to the applicant.

For a developer, building under an outdated zoning code can present significant hurdles that inflate costs, delay projects, or prevent projects from moving forward entirely. Outdated codes often lack definitions for modern uses, which if not expressly permitted, is generally considered prohibited, forcing the developer to seek approval or zoning relief. Older ordinances frequently demand excessive setbacks or massive parking minimums, which were envisioned in a society for which the purpose of these requirements no longer exists or is economically viable. Outdated codes also create ambiguity which can potentially feed into the concerns of potential objectors.

For a residential homeowner looking to remodel their home, outdated zoning codes may be inflexible and mandate only one- or two-story structures. Frequently, relatively common accessory uses or structures, such as an in-law suite or dedicated home office are not included in older codes. As a result, you may be forced to delay your project while you seek zoning relief, face increased costs, and/or be denied relief altogether. Statistics show that unrepresented applicants succeed less than 30% of the time due to errors in the application or incomplete arguments.

A knowledgeable attorney can frame your argument legally to demonstrate that it is the outdated code – not your application – that is creating the problem. While navigating an outdated zoning code can appear daunting, the outdated nature of the code can create favorable opportunities for developers. A skilled land use attorney can identify vulnerabilities in the code and may be able to leverage the approval of a project that would normally have been restricted.

Are you hesitant to start a development or renovation project because of trouble navigating an older zoning code? If you have questions about how to get started or other zoning and land use matters, you may contact Natalie Young at nyoung@macelree.com, or by phone at (610) 840-0233.

This article provides a general overview of the law. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice for any particular factual situation.

College Expenses After Divorce in Pennsylvania: Don’t Forget About the 529 Plan

by Leave a Comment

Many parents are surprised to learn that in Pennsylvania, child support generally ends when a child turns 18 and graduates from high school. Unlike some states, Pennsylvania courts cannot require divorced parents to pay for their child’s college education absent an agreement between the parties. As a result, it is critical to address college expenses during the divorce process, particularly when a 529 college savings plan exists.

A 529 plan can be an excellent tool for funding higher education, but your divorce agreement should clearly outline how the account will be managed. To preserve the tax advantages of the plan, the agreement should specify that 529 funds may only be used for qualified educational expenses for the children. It should also address who controls the account, how distributions are authorized, and whether the funds may be used for graduate or professional education.

Just as important, the agreement should anticipate what happens if money remains in the account after the children complete their education. Depending on the family’s goals, the parties may agree that unused funds will be rolled into a Roth IRA for the child, subject to applicable law, or divided between the parents. Addressing these issues in advance can help avoid future disputes and ensure that the funds are used as intended.

Every family and every case is different. If you’re facing questions about college expenses, 529 plans, or other financial issues in divorce, the MacElree Harvey, Ltd. Family Law team can help you evaluate your options and protect your interests. Contact Pilar Diaz at (610) 840-0276 or PDiaz@macelree.com to schedule a consultation.

Employment Law Update September, 2026

by Leave a Comment

In the September 2026 Employment Law Update, we examine the EEOC’s growing focus on “anti-American” national origin discrimination and what Chair Andrea Lucas’ recent enforcement initiatives may mean for employers. Pennsylvania employers with significant migrant worker populations, including those in the agricultural and mushroom industries, as well as businesses utilizing foreign-worker programs and outsourced international workforces, should take note of this emerging enforcement priority. Get the details below.

EEOC Signals in Social Media Campaign Heightened Enforcement of “Anti-American” National Origin Discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), under the leadership of Chair Andrea Lucas, has made clear that enforcement of so-called “anti-American” national origin discrimination is a significant agency priority. Recent public statements suggest employers should expect increased scrutiny of hiring, promotion, and workforce management practices that are perceived as favoring foreign workers over U.S. workers.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on national origin. While such claims have historically been associated with immigrant or foreign-born workers, the EEOC’s current leadership has emphasized that American workers are equally protected under the statute.

That shift was prominently displayed on September 14, 2026, when Chair Lucas released a video on X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn urging workers to report suspected anti-American discrimination. In the video, Lucas asked: “Have you been harassed at work for speaking English or for being too American?” She also questioned whether employers have “preferred workers of one foreign national origin” or whether a foreign-owned business “mostly hires or promotes non-American workers.”

Lucas further targeted employment-based immigration practices, asking technology workers whether they had encountered PERM labor certification advertisements requiring applicants to respond “by mail or even fax instead of the company’s normal online job platform.” She also referenced allegations that some employers “prefer foreign workers because they consider American workers lazy.” After listing these examples, Lucas concluded: “If any of this sounds familiar, you may have experienced unlawful anti-American national origin discrimination.”

The significance of the video is not the legal theory itself; Title VII has long prohibited discrimination against American workers based on national origin. Rather, the significance lies in the EEOC’s active effort to generate complaints and identify the fact patterns it intends to investigate. Employers should expect heightened scrutiny of hiring practices, guest-worker programs, foreign-language workplace policies, immigration sponsorship programs, and employment decisions involving foreign-owned businesses.

This development is particularly relevant for Pennsylvania employers operating in industries with substantial migrant, seasonal, or foreign-sponsored workforces. Agricultural employers, mushroom growers, food-processing operations, landscaping companies, hospitality businesses, and manufacturers that rely on guest-worker programs should carefully review their hiring, employment practices, and workforce composition to ensure that U.S. workers are afforded equal opportunities and are not being treated less favorably based on national origin. Likewise, employers utilizing H-2A, H-2B, H-1B, or other foreign-worker programs, outsourced international workforces or foreign-owned affiliated entities should ensure that recruiting, promotion, and staffing decisions are based on legitimate business considerations rather than preferences tied to a worker’s nationality.

The practical takeaway is not that employers should avoid utilizing lawful foreign labor programs or diverse workforces. Rather, employers should ensure that employment decisions are based on legitimate business criteria, that domestic applicants receive equal consideration, and that policies regarding language use, recruiting, and promotion are applied consistently. Given the EEOC’s public campaign to encourage complaints, employers should anticipate an increase in charges asserting anti-American national origin discrimination and review their practices accordingly.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.  

Connelly v. United States: Why Business Owners Should Revisit Their Buy-Sell Agreements

by Leave a Comment

What the Supreme Court’s decision means for life insurance-funded buy-sell agreements.

By Andrew R. Silverman

If you own a closely held business, chances are you signed a buy-sell agreement years ago and have not looked at it since. Many of those agreements rely on life insurance to fund the purchase of an owner’s interest following death.

Until recently, business owners and their advisers generally assumed that this arrangement would not increase the estate tax value of the business. The United States Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Connelly v. United States calls that assumption into question.

For owners whose companies use life insurance to fund a company’s buy-back of a deceased owner’s interest (also known as a redemption), the practical issue is straightforward: Does the buy-sell agreement still operate the way the owners intended? For many businesses, the answer may be no.

How Life Insurance-Funded Buy-Sell Agreements Work

A buy-sell agreement establishes what happens to an owner’s interest when that owner dies, becomes disabled, retires, or experiences another specified event. Upon an owner’s death, the agreement typically requires either the company or the surviving owners to purchase the deceased owner’s interest.

Many buy-sell agreements use life insurance to fund that purchase.

One of the most common arrangements is a redemption agreement. Under this structure, the company owns a life insurance policy on each owner. When an owner dies, the company receives the insurance proceeds and uses them to purchase, or redeem, the deceased owner’s shares from the estate.

The arrangement is popular because it is relatively easy to administer. The company pays the premiums, owns the policies, and handles the buyout. The surviving owners do not have to fund the purchase personally at a difficult time.

The structure historically rested on a seemingly logical assumption. Although the insurance proceeds increase the company’s assets, the company also has an obligation to use those proceeds to redeem the deceased owner’s shares. If the incoming insurance proceeds and outgoing redemption payment offset one another, the insurance should not increase the value of the company or the deceased owner’s interest for estate tax purposes.

In Connelly, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected that assumption under the facts before it.

What Connelly Means for Redemption Buy-Sell Agreements

Connelly v. United States, 602 U.S. 257 (2024), involved two brothers who owned a Missouri building-supply company. Their company had a buy-sell agreement designed to provide for the purchase of an owner’s shares following death.

When one brother, Michael Connelly, died, the company received $3.5 million in life insurance proceeds. It used $3 million to redeem Michael’s shares. His estate valued the company at approximately $3.86 million without including the insurance proceeds.

The IRS took a different position. It included the proceeds and valued the company at $6.86 million. The Supreme Court agreed with the IRS.

The Court reasoned that a redemption at fair market value does not reduce the company’s value in the same way as an ordinary debt. A company with $10 million in assets and an obligation to redeem $3 million of its shares remains worth $10 million immediately before the redemption. After the company pays $3 million and redeems the shares, the remaining shareholders collectively own a company worth $7 million, but they own a larger percentage of it. Their economic position has not been reduced by the redemption obligation.

The life insurance proceeds, by contrast, are an asset of the company and increase its value. The obligation to redeem the deceased owner’s shares generally does not offset that increase.

The result is that company-owned life insurance may increase the value of the very shares the insurance was intended to purchase. The estate may therefore owe tax based on value that it does not ultimately retain.

Consider a company worth $10 million before taking its insurance into account. If the company receives $5 million in death benefits, its value for estate tax purposes may increase to $15 million immediately before the redemption. The deceased owner’s shares are valued using that higher company value, even though the insurance proceeds will be used to purchase those shares.

The Connelly Holding Has Limits

The decision should not be read more broadly than necessary.

The Supreme Court did not hold that a redemption obligation can never affect the value of a company. It left open the possibility that a redemption obligation could reduce value when satisfying it would impair the company’s operations or future earning capacity. For example, the analysis may be different if a company must sell operating assets, incur substantial debt, or otherwise damage its business to complete the redemption.

That was not the situation in Connelly. The company held life insurance specifically intended to fund the purchase. Because the insurance proceeds were available to satisfy the redemption obligation, the payment did not impair the company’s underlying operations.

Most conventional insurance-funded redemption agreements are likely to present the same basic concern. The company owns the policy, receives the proceeds, and uses those proceeds to purchase the deceased owner’s interest. Those arrangements fall within the central reasoning of Connelly.

Why Higher Estate Tax Exemptions Do Not Eliminate the Risk

The federal estate and gift tax exclusion increased to $15 million per person effective January 1, 2026, subject to inflation adjustments. A married couple may be able to shelter $30 million through proper planning, and many estates will not owe federal estate tax.

That does not mean business owners should ignore Connelly.

First, the decision can increase the value being measured. A business worth $9 million, with $6 million of company-owned life insurance, may be treated as a $15 million business upon an owner’s death. The valuation occurs at death, potentially after years of growth and appreciation. Today’s business value may not reflect the value that will be included in an owner’s estate years from now.

Second, the current exclusion has no scheduled expiration, but Congress can change federal tax law. An owner’s estate tax exposure will depend on the law and the value of the business at the time of death, not when the buy-sell agreement was signed or last reviewed.

Third, the choice between a redemption and a cross-purchase arrangement affects more than estate tax. The structure may determine whether surviving owners receive additional tax basis in the acquired interest. It also affects whether the life insurance proceeds are exposed to claims by the company’s creditors.

Pennsylvania business owners should also remember that the Commonwealth’s inheritance tax operates independently of the federal estate tax system. Even when no federal estate tax is due, state-level transfer tax considerations may remain relevant.

The larger federal exclusion reduces the number of estates immediately affected by Connelly, but it does not make the design of the buy-sell agreement irrelevant.

Can the Price in a Buy-Sell Agreement Control Estate Tax Value?

Many owners assume that the price stated in their buy-sell agreement determines the value of the business for estate tax purposes. A well-drafted pricing provision can help prevent disputes among the surviving owners and the deceased owner’s estate. It does not automatically bind the IRS.

Internal Revenue Code § 2703 generally directs the IRS to disregard an agreement that permits property to be acquired for less than fair market value unless the agreement satisfies several requirements. Among other things, the arrangement must serve a bona fide business purpose, cannot operate as a device to transfer property to family members for less than full and adequate consideration, and must contain terms comparable to those found in an arm’s-length transaction.

Courts apply these requirements carefully, particularly when the owners are related.

The agreement in Connelly did not contain a binding fixed or formula price. It contemplated that the brothers would agree on a value each year. They never did. The agreement provided an appraisal process if the parties did not agree, but that process was not  followed before the company and the estate negotiated the redemption price.

Better pricing discipline might have reduced uncertainty between the company and the estate. It would not necessarily have changed the treatment of the company-owned life insurance proceeds.

A defensible valuation provision remains an important part of a buy-sell agreement, but it does not, by itself, remove company-owned insurance from the company’s value.

Planning Options After Connelly

There is no single replacement structure that works for every business. The appropriate response depends on the number of owners, the company’s entity and tax classification, the owners’ estate plans, the value and terms of existing policies, and the company’s ability to fund future premiums.

The principal planning options include the following.

Cross-Purchase Agreement

Under a cross-purchase agreement, the individual owners, rather than the company, own life insurance policies on one another. When an owner dies, the surviving owners receive the insurance proceeds and use them to purchase the deceased owner’s interest directly.

Because the insurance proceeds do not enter the company, they do not increase the company’s value. The purchasing owners also generally receive tax basis in the interest they acquire, which may reduce their taxable gain on a later sale.

The disadvantages are practical. Each owner must fund premiums personally. If the company has several owners, the number of required policies can multiply quickly. Changes in ownership may also require corresponding changes to the insurance structure.

Insurance LLC

An insurance LLC may address some of the administrative problems associated with a traditional cross-purchase arrangement. Under this structure, a separate limited liability company, ordinarily taxed as a partnership, owns and administers one life insurance policy for each business owner.

Centralized ownership can reduce the number of policies and simplify premium administration. If properly structured, the arrangement may also qualify for the partnership exception to the transfer-for-value rule under Internal Revenue Code § 101(a)(2)(B).

An insurance LLC is not a plug-and-play solution. Its estate tax treatment relies in part on IRS guidance rather than a definitive judicial framework. The LLC must be respected as a genuine partnership, and the governing documents, economic arrangements, insurance policies, and transfer provisions must work together. This option requires careful design and ongoing administration.

Additional Life Insurance

Owners who want to retain a redemption structure may purchase additional insurance intended to cover both the redemption price and the resulting estate tax exposure.

The approach can work mathematically, but it has limitations. Additional coverage means additional premiums, and the appropriate amount must be reevaluated as the business grows. The proceeds remain company assets and may remain exposed to the company’s creditors. Additional insurance may fund the tax created by the structure without addressing the underlying valuation issue.

Trust Ownership

In appropriate circumstances, an irrevocable life insurance trust may own a policy on a business owner’s life. If properly structured and administered, the proceeds may remain outside both the company and the insured owner’s taxable estate.

Execution is critical. The trust generally must own the policy, not simply be named as its beneficiary. Transferring an existing policy can also create estate tax timing issues and implicate the transfer-for-value rules. A trust-owned policy must be coordinated with the buy-sell agreement, the owner’s estate plan, and the source of premium payments.

Practical Tip: Verify the Insurance Records First

Before changing a buy-sell agreement or moving any policy, confirm:

  • Who owns each life insurance policy.
  • Who is named as the beneficiary.
  • Who pays the premiums.
  • Whether any policy has been transferred.
  • Whether the coverage remains sufficient in light of the company’s current value.
  • Whether the policy terms and designations match the buy-sell agreement.

Insurance paperwork often does not match the owners’ understanding of how the arrangement is supposed to work. A change in ownership, beneficiary designation, or premium arrangement may also have tax consequences. Moving an existing policy can raise issues that would not arise if the parties purchased a new policy.

The policy records and the agreement should therefore be reviewed together.

When Should Business Owners Review Their Buy-Sell Agreements?

A review following Connelly does not need to become an open-ended business succession planning exercise. It should begin with a focused examination of:

  • The structure of the existing buy-sell agreement.
  • The ownership and beneficiary designations for each life insurance policy.
  • The agreement’s valuation and pricing provisions.
  • Compliance with Internal Revenue Code § 2703.
  • The company’s entity and tax classification.
  • The income tax basis consequences to the surviving owners.
  • The potential exposure of insurance proceeds to company creditors.
  • The relationship between the buy-sell agreement and each owner’s estate plan.

For some businesses, the existing redemption structure may remain appropriate. For others, a cross-purchase agreement, insurance LLC, trust-owned policy, or another modification may better accomplish the owners’ objectives.

Business owners should consider a review if their agreement has not been examined since Connelly, particularly where the business has experienced significant growth, an owner’s health has changed, the company is preparing for a transaction, or the ownership group expects to change.

The most important step is to understand how the agreement and insurance policies work before an owner dies. A buy-sell agreement should provide certainty at a difficult time. It should not create an estate tax result that the owners never intended.

Lessons & Takeaways From Celebrity Estate Planning Blunders 

by Leave a Comment

Over the years, there have been many stories of celebrities passing away and leaving their loved ones to solve complicated problems due to lack of proper estate planning. Money, success, and fame do not protect celebrities, nor you and I, from the problems created by incomplete, improper, and outdated estate planning. Below are lessons that can be learned from mistakes made by celebrities in the estate planning arena. 

Have A Plan—Creating An Estate Plan Is Essential (Prince) 

According to an IRS tax settlement, at the time of his death in 2016, Prince had a net worth of $156.4 million. Prince passed away without a will, trust, or any estate planning documents. This lack of planning led to a six (6) year probate process and disputes between his heirs and the IRS. In the end, his estate was divided between his half-siblings under Minnesota law—which many say would not have been his wish. As a result of the failure to plan Prince’s estate dragged on for years, paid more in tax then was likely necessary, and the beneficiaries of the estate were determined by state law rather than individual wishes. Prince’s story illustrate the necessity of ensuring you have an estate plan in place. 

Update Your Plan—As Major Life Events Occur Your Plan Should Be Modified (Kobe Bryant & Heath Ledger) 

Kobe Bryant tragically passed away in a helicopter crash seven (7) months after the birth of his youngest daughter, Capri. Kobe had a trust based estate plan and had updated it after the birth of his three other children, however Capri was not added to the trust prior to Kobe’s untimely death. As the trust was written, if Kobe’s wife, Vanessa, were to pass away, the family’s wealth would be distributed to Kobe’s older children, to the exclusion of Capri. While the omission of Capri was an oversight, it necessitated a Petition to add Capri to the trust, which was ultimately successful under California law. Kobe’s story illustrates that it is never too early or too soon to ensure your estate plan is up to date as your life changes. 

Heath Ledger also passed away in an untimely manner. Heath created his will in 2003 prior to the birth of his daughter in 2008. The 2003 will left his estate to his parents and siblings and did not account for his daughter or her mother. Ultimately, Heath’s family gifted the proceeds of the estate to his daughter. Had this not taken place, a long and expensive fight would almost certainly have occurred. Heath Ledger’s story is another example of the importance of ensuring your estate plan is up to date and is modified as your life evolves. 

Fund Your Trust—Estate Planning Does Not End At Signing (Michael Jackson) 

At the time of his passing, Michael Jackson had a revocable living trust in place. However, the trust had never been funded. As a result, the probate process was required to move the assets from his individual name into his trust—adding significant delay in distribution and unnecessary expenses. While there are the rare occasions when a trust intentionally remains unfunded, generally speaking an unfunded revocable living trust defeats the purpose of having the trust. After you have gone through the trouble of setting up your estate plan, make sure the process is seen through to completion ensuring the plan functions as you intend it to. 

Plan For Incapacity—Designate The Agents Of Your Choosing  (Brian Wilson & Casey Kasem) 

Brian Wilson, a member of the Beach Boys, was declared incapacitated by the Los Angeles Superior Court in 2024. This determination was made following the passing of his wife and primary care giver. Wilson’s publicist and business manager were appointed as his conservators, even though he had then living children. With a general durable power of attorney and health care power of attorney and advanced directive, conservatorship could have been avoided, and Brian could have chosen his own agents to see to his affairs. 

Casey Kasem, the host of America’s Top 40, was married twice during his life. The first marriage led to three children and the second resulted in an additional child. Kasem was diagnosed with dementia leading to lawsuits, including claims of elder abuse, between his children from his first marriage and his second wife. While the matter was settled out of Court, the entire dispute could have been avoided with a proper power of attorney. 

Don’t Do It Yourself—Consult An Estate Planning Professional  (Chief Justice Warren Burger) 

Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger, prepared his own 176 word will. His will contained typos and failed to give his executors all of the powers required to properly administer his estate, including the inability to sell real estate. Commentators have expressed opinions that the DIY will led his estate to pay excess taxes, some suggesting as high as six figures. This could have been easily avoided, had Justice Burger consulted an estate planning professional and not undertaken to prepare his will himself. 

Closing Thought 

While very few people enjoy taking the time and expending the resources required to create a proper estate plan, the celebrity estate planning blunders discussed above highlight the need to take estate planning seriously. Everyone, despite level of wealth, should have an estate plan prepared by a professional and updated on an ongoing basis. Taking the time to ensure your estate plan is prepared properly allows you to make sure your wishes are fully and accurately captured as well as to take care of your family and avoid delay, expense, and litigation following your passing. 

Can My Spouse Force Me To Sell Our House During a Divorce?

by Leave a Comment

It’s a common question — particularly when one spouse wants to sell and the other wants to stay.

As with many things in family law, the answer is: it depends.

If both spouses agree to sell the marital residence, the process can be relatively straightforward. But even then, it’s important to agree on the details: How will the listing price be set? When must an offer be accepted? And will the proceeds be divided immediately or held in escrow until equitable distribution is resolved?

But what if one spouse doesn’t agree to sell?

That’s where things get more complicated.

A spouse seeking to force a sale may need to ask the court to intervene. Financial circumstances are often an important part of that analysis — particularly if the carrying costs of the home can no longer be sustained or the property is not being properly maintained.

The bottom line: Wanting the house sold and being able to force its sale are not necessarily the same thing.

Every family and every case is different. If you’re facing questions about the marital home — whether to stay, sell, or what happens when you and your spouse don’t agree — the MacElree Harvey, Ltd. Family Law team can help you evaluate the legal and practical considerations before making that decision. Contact Michael C. Rovito at (610) 840-0241 or MRovito@macelree.com to schedule a consultation.

LEGAL SERVICES

ABOUT US

NEWS & INSIGHTS

OFFICES

Centreville, DE

5721 Kennett Pike
Wilmington, DE 19807
302-654-4454
Learn More

Kennett Square, PA

209 East State Street Road
Kennett Square, PA 19348
610-444-3180
Learn More

West Chester, PA

17 West Miner Street
West Chester, PA 19382
610-436-0100
Learn More