Opinion ID: 1246907
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: collection of assets

Text: Conway repeats similar complaints about missing assets by insisting that First Trust had a duty to fully investigate and determine if any assets were not accounted for, and also negate the possibility that fraud was committed. She also makes various vague claims as to missing funds, ranging from $39,000 to $882,740, but there is no coherent identification of where or when these funds allegedly disappeared. Conway castigates First Trust for not doing enough to collect these assets which she believes are missing. She points out that a successor personal representative has the same power and duty as the original personal representative to complete the administration and distribution of the estate as expeditiously as possible ...; N.D.C.C. § 30.1-18-16. Conway cites Miller v. First National Bank of Linton, 62 N.D. 122, 242 N.W. 124 (1932) and Dolphin v. Peterson, 63 N.D. 792, 249 N.W. 784 (1933) to the effect that an executor of an estate has a duty to account for all property belonging to the estate. She also cites several cases from other states which imply that successor fiduciaries must account for the entire period of time in question rather than simply just after their appointment. Those may be sound general principles, but they have no application to the circumstances of this case. Our Probate Code specifically provides:  Except as otherwise ordered by the court, the successor personal representative has the powers and duties in respect to the continued administration which the former personal representative would have had if his appointment had not been terminated. N.D.C.C. § 30.1-17-13 (emphasis supplied). First Trust's duties were appropriately otherwise ordered as to responsibility for prior actions of Parker and Conway. The duties and powers of a personal representative commence upon his appointment. N.D.C.C. § 30.1-18-01. When appointed, First Trust was expressly absolved of any and all liability for any actions, transactions, errors or omissions of... Parker and ... Conway ... prior to the date of its appointment.... This order was congruent with the Probate Code which allows a personal representative to leave property with those who are presumptively entitled thereto unless necessary for purposes of administration; N.D. C.C. § 30.1-18-09. Prior filed accountings and prior distributions to the sisters demonstrate that First Trust was not obliged to collect all assets of the estates. Its responsibility extended only to remaining property of the estates that actually came into its hands. We perceive no basis to impose a fiduciary responsibility on First Trust for assets that were never turned over to it by Conway and Parker. Conway argues that it is sufficient to impose a greater fiduciary duty on First Trust that it had been alerted that asserts [sic] may be missing ... and that there may have been wrongdoing on the part of a previous coexecutrix. Mere possibility of misconduct by a prior fiduciary is not alone sufficient reason to hold a successor fiduciary responsible for it. The record is barren of evidence showing the present whereabouts or custody of any specific missing assets. Conway herself wholly failed to account for any. Under these circumstances, we conclude that First Trust did not violate any fiduciary duty to Conway in collecting assets of the estates.