Opinion ID: 2654990
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of the Motion to Appoint Carl Taylor

Text: James Taylor also claims that the trial court erred in not appointing Carl Taylor to replace him as successor personal representative. We do not reach the issue because a personal representative who has been removed by the probate court has no standing to contest the appointment of a successor. In re Estate of Delaney, supra, 819 A.2d at 1003 (holding that a removed personal representative who was 15 also a legatee under the will was not an “aggrieved” party in the meaning of D.C. Code § 11-721 (b) (2001) and the appointment of a successor personal representative causes no injury to the former representative‟s “legal rights or to some legally protected relationship”). James Taylor has not described how he was aggrieved by this decision, nor has he cited any authority in support of his argument that, as a legatee, he has standing whenever the trial court construes the will. James Taylor‟s appeal of the October 1, 2012, order is therefore dismissed. See id. (“An appeal may be dismissed if the appellant lacks standing as an aggrieved party. (citing In re C.T., 724 A.2d 590, 595 (D.C. 1999))).