Delay in Sale of Real Property Was Not a Violation of the Executors Duty to the Eighteen Year Estate
In the estate administration and estate litigation case of In Re Estate of Rose M. Eisewert, PICS Case NO. 14-1000 (C.P. Lycoming, June 3, 2014) the Honorable Marc Francis Lovecchio denied the objections of the Estate of Alice Miller to the first and final accounting of Fred C. Eiswert, executor of the Estate of Rose M. Eiswert, since the delay in the administration of the estate was not a violation of the executors duty to the estate.
Rose M. Eiswert passed away on April 26, 1995 and her son, Fred C. Eiswert, was appointed as executor of her estate. On April 9, 2013, Eiswert, as executor, filed a distribution of the estate. Robert J. Miller, as executor of the Estate of Alice I. Miller, decedent’s daughter, objected to the accounting. Eiswert filed an answer to the objections.
The primary issue was the delay between Eiswert’s appointment as executor and the filing of the distribution. The court found the delay both reasonable and necessary and, in fact, worked to the beneficiaries’ benefit. At all times, the executor exercised prudence, skill and caution in the exercise of his duties.
The dispute between the objectant’s family and the remaining families over real property on Dauber Road, Lycoming Township was such that an expeditious resolution was impossible. Complicating matters were PennDOT litigation condemning part of the property, which affected real estate values and interest rates; the health of the siblings; a dispute among the siblings over selling the property; the fact that the property was producing income; significant sentimental value and the fact that there was no evidence to prove that a loss had been caused to the objectant.
The court concluded that the delay in the administration of the estate was not a violation of the executor’s duty to the estate under the circumstances. Because objectant sought a surcharge, he bore the burden of proving the executor’s wrongdoing and failed to meet that burden. The court found the executor’s actions in administering the estate for the many years was reasonable in all respects. Accordingly, a surcharge was not imposed.
Objections to fees incurred in the maintenance of the estate failed. The executor fulfilled his statutory duty to preserve the estate. Moreover, but for the efforts of the executor, the estate would have been valued at far less than its final value.
An error on the tax accountant’s part could not be attributed to the executor. The sale of three lots was both reasonable and in the best interest of the estate and ultimate beneficiaries.
The objections to the farming income also failed. The executor’s conduct with respect to farming the property was not only consistent with his mother’s wishes and practice but also in the best interest of the beneficiaries. Moreover, the executor could not be surcharged for choosing to have the property farmed versus enrolling it in the CREP program.
The objection to the PennDOT settlement similarly failed. The land at issue was condemned by PennDOT while the deceased was living. Litigation was commenced seeking a reasonable price for the condemned property. The executor’s actions with respect to the PennDOT condemnation were reasonable under all of the circumstances and in the best interests of the estate.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 37 PLW 618 (July 1, 2014)
Filed Under: Estate Law, Estate Administration, Estate Litigation
Please visit our Probate/Estate Administration website for more information on this topic.