Opinion ID: 2310646
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Goldstein

Text: The probate court found that Goldstein should bear the same burden that the Court places upon Riggs where the disclosure issue is concerned. The probate court additionally recognized that because Goldstein overpaid himself during the lifetime of the decedent, he can only replace the overpayment by refunding money to the decedent's estate out of his pocket or by accepting a reduction in compensation that he otherwise earned as Co Personal Representative. Opting for the latter method, the trial court found that the overpayment received by Goldstein as trustee should be deducted from his claimed compensation ($20,000) as a Co Personal Representative, in conjunction with a further reduction for all of the same reasons that this court will reduce the fees of Riggs, and that he shall be paid nothing from this estate beyond what was disbursed to him previously [under the Trust]. The actual net result, given that Goldstein had been overpaid $14,835.42 from the Trust, see supra note 3, was a trial court award to Goldstein of personal representative fees in that amount, approximately a twenty-five percent (25%) reduction from his requested compensation. If, as the trial court stated, however, Goldstein is to bear the same burden as Riggs for failure to disclose the final account, a one-half reduction in requested fees, he should have been entitled to no more than $10,000 of his requested $20,000 personal representative compensation. If Goldstein is entitled to more, i.e., if he is to be sanctioned less than Riggs, the trial court must make clear with specific findings why this is the case. Otherwise, if Goldstein is in possession of funds to which he is not entitled, they must be returned to the estate.