Estate of Meyers

California Court of Appeal Jan 7, 1955 No. Civ. 20411Published

Before: Shinn

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an administrator's removal for alleged neglect or conflict of interest was improper where there was no evidence of loss to the estate, no proof of actual neglect of duty, and no legal disqualification arising solely from the administrator's joint tenancy interest or familial relationship with a claimant.

Issues

Whether an administrator may be removed for neglect of duty based on a delay in filing a complete inventory without evidence of loss to the estate.
Whether an administrator is disqualified by a conflict of interest arising from joint tenancy claims or familial ties to a claimant when those claims are being adjudicated in separate litigation.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The general rule is that an executor or administrator will not be removed for the mere delay or failure to file an inventory within the time prescribed by the statute, unless the delay or failure has caused a loss to the estate.”

“One whose fitness to act as executor or administrator is challenged by petition for his removal is entitled to be advised as to the specific grounds upon which his removal is sought.”

“Adversity of interest should be regarded as of no consequence whatever unless it presents a threat to the best interests of the estate.”

[146]

SHINN, P. J.

Leo John Meyers died intestate July 12, 1952, leaving him surviving his widow, Ann Berman Meyers, and two daughters by a former wife, namely, Muriel Meyers and Florence Morris. Mrs. Meyers has a son, Michael S. Berman, by a former husband. On December 11, 1952, upon nomination of Mrs. Meyers, Michael was appointed administrator of the estate. On February 17, 1953, an inheritance tax appraiser was appointed as appraiser of the estate. On December 15, 1953, a partial inventory and appraisement was filed showing assets of $900. November 6, 1953, Muriel Meyers filed a petition for the removal of Berman as administrator and for the appointment of herself and Florence Morris as administratrices. The ground of the petition was stated as follows: “That said Michael S. Berman, as Administrator of said estate, has wrongfully neglected the estate and has long neglected to file any inventory in said estate or to perform any other act in connection with the administration of said estate.” Due notice was given and the matter was heard upon oral evidence. The court made findings as follows: “The Court finds that it is true that Michael S. Berman, as Administrator of said estate, has neglected his duties in filing a full and complete inventory in the above estate and has failed to exercise that degree of independent judgment and diligence reasonably to be expected to ascertain and discover the assets which belong to said estate; That it is true that Michael S. Berman is the son of Ann H. Berman Meters, the widow of said decedent who claims substantially all of the property in which decedent had an interest during his lifetime, and that a substantial conflict of interests between the above estate and said widow exists; The Court finds that it is true that said Michael S. Berman, as Administrator of the above estate, does not exercise that degree of independence of his mother, Ann H. Berman Meters, as would enable him to act adversely to her in any matters involving the said estate.”

The court concluded from the facts found that the administrator was unfit to serve as such and should be removed. He was ordered removed and the petition for the appointment of Muriel Meyers and Florence Morris was granted. Michael S. Berman appeals.

It is claimed by the appellant that the petition for removal did not raise an issue as to the ability or willingness of Berman to perform his duties independently of his mother or charge him with having directly or indirectly interests

Estate of Meyers

AI Brief

SHINN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief