Out Of State Administrator Is Entitled To Reasonable Commission Plus Reimbursement for Travel Expenses
CATEGORY: Wills, Trusts & Estate Litigation
An estate administrator was entitled to both a reasonable commission and reimbursement for travel expenses associated with the estate. The court refused to impose a surcharge, because any delay attributable to the administrator was not egregious.
ManorCare Health Services was a creditor of the decedent’s estate because it had provided residential nursing services to decedent. The administrator filed a final accounting and proposed distribution, and ManorCare objected. According to ManorCare, the administrator’s delays prevented closure of the estate and payment to creditors.
The objection by ManorCare raised issues relating to the administrator’s travel expenses. The administrator produced a statement of her travel expenses, including dates, with a breakdown of expenses for transportation, hotel and fuel costs. The administrator lived in Florida, but she was the only one willing to step in to handle this estate. The trips allowed the administrator to conduct funeral arrangements, check on decedent’s residence, handle the personal property, and get the real property ready for sale. The administrator received a commission, and ManorCare objected to her receiving reimbursements in addition to that. The court held that the rate of commission was in line with the formula typically used for compensating estate administrators. The commission was not disproportionate to the value of the estate. The court also found that the administrator was entitled to recover travel expenses for gas, U-Haul rental and hotel expenses, so it approved her request for reimbursement of these expenses. However, the administrator also sought “cash expenses” for which she did not provide any detail. These cash expenses totaled $4,900, and the court agreed with ManorCare that this amount should be subtracted from the reimbursements to the administrator.
Next, ManorCare contended that two bank accounts should have been included in the estate. The administrator provided a letter from the bank regarding these accounts, which stated that they had been jointly held as of the date of decedent’s death. At the death of one co-owner, the other became the sole owner of the accounts unless designated otherwise, so these accounts were non-probate assets. ManorCare demanded more proof than the letter from the bank, but the court found the letter was sufficient to prove the accounts were non-probate assets. This type of letter was a usual and ordinary way of confirming date of death values and the ownership of accounts.
Finally, ManorCare sought to impose a surcharge on the administrator was so egregious as to require a surcharge. There was no loss to the beneficiaries, and no evidence of willful neglect or refusal by the administrator, so the court declined to impose a surcharge as a penalty.
Ref: Digests of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania La Weekly, 43 PLW 1143, Tuesday, December 15, 2020, In re: Estate of Boucher, PICS Case No. 20-1256 (C.P. Monroe, Nov 6, 2020)
Kindly visit our Estate & Trust Planning/Administration & Estate Litigation website or contact one of our Estate Attorneys, Philadelphia or Wills & Trusts Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia for more information on this topic.