Petition To Remove Executrix Is Denied As Beneficiaries Had The Authority To Request An Accounting Under Decedents Power Attorney

In the estate administration and estate litigation case of In Re Estate of Ferraro, PICS Case No. 15-1384 (C.P. Lawrence, May 11, 2015) the Honorable John W. Hodge ruled that the petition to remove executrix of estate is denied where, as beneficiaries of decedent’s estate, petitioners had the authority to request an accounting of respondent’s actions as decedents power of attorney.

Petitioners Lynette Ferraro, Rachele Ferraro and Celeste Bradway are three of decedent Josephine Ferraro’s four surviving children. Respondent Justine Kearney is the fourth surviving child and the executrix of the estate of Josephine Ferraro.

Petitioners filed a petition to remove executrix, alleging that respondent was wasting and mismanaging estate assets. Petitioners also alleged that respondent had multiple conflicts with the estate because of outstanding debts respondent owed to decedent at the time of her death.

Respondent challenged the legal sufficiency of the petition. Respondent specifically referenced petitioners’ assertions that only the personal representative has standing to demand an accounting and that respondent’s daughter had been living in decedent’s residence while the estate pays the taxes, utilities and maintenance fees. Respondent argued that the petitioners, as successors in interest to decedent’s estate, had the authority to request an accounting of respondent’s actions as power of attorney for decedent. Respondent cited 20 Pa.C.S.A. §5601.3(d)(1) to support her argument. Section 5601.3(d)(1) requires an agent to provide an accounting of all transactions conducted on the decedent’s behalf if requested to do so by the court or a beneficiary to the estate. The court therefore struck the relevant paragraph of the petition to remove executrix.

In addition, the court found that the case law referenced by respondent supported her argument that the fact that her daughter lived in decedent’s home was not sufficient grounds to support her removal as executrix. However, this fact could be evidence considered by the court at the time of a full hearing. If considered alone, petitioners’ allegation would not support respondent’s removal as executrix of the estate; however, the court could not consider the individual facts pled independently of each other because in their totality, the facts might establish sufficient grounds to warrant the relief sought. Therefore, the relevant paragraph should not be stricken from the petition to remove executrix.

Respondent’s second preliminary objection challenged the specificity of the underlying petition. Respondent asserted that the petition to remove executrix failed to identify the account in which respondent placed decedent’s funds or the records kept by decedent outlining the loans and advances she made during her lifetime. In considering respondent’s arguments, the court found this objection to be without merit. The identification of the account and any records of loans make could be obtained during discovery. Furthermore, the information sought was within respondent’s possession.

Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 38 PLW 845 (September 8, 2015)

Filed Under: Estate Administration; Petition to Remove Executrix; Power of Attorney; Accounting

Kindly visit our Probate & Estate Administration & Wills, Trusts & Estate Litigation websites for more information on this topic.