Opinion ID: 2444731
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Finding of Contributory Negligence

Text: We also agree with the Pairs' assertion that the trial court erred in concluding that contributory negligence in this case is a complete bar to the Pairs' recovery from Mr. Queen. It is important to remember that the Pairs are not only personal representatives but also beneficiaries of the estate. Personal representatives owe a fiduciary duty to the estate and its beneficiaries. In re Estate of Green, 912 A.2d 1198, 1209 (D.C.2006). For that reason, a personal representative is generally personally liable to the estate for any penalties, interest, or additional tax which may accrue as a result of [his] error.  In re Estate of Elkins, 692 A.2d 910, 912 (D.C. 1995) (emphasis added). That is, a personal representative whose violation of a tax law provision has resulted in the assessment and imposition of a penalty ... is, in the absence of some showing of proper excuse [,] ... personally liable to the estate. Jones v. Hagans, 634 A.2d 1219, 1225 (D.C.1993) (emphasis added) (quoting J.R. Kemper, Annotation, Liability of Executor, Administrator, Trustee, or His Counsel, for Interest, Penalty, or Extra Taxes, Assessed Against Estate Because of Tax Law Violations, 47 A.L.R.3d 507, 510 (1973)). When considering whether penalties resulted from a personal representative's error, this court has specifically agree[d] with the distinction between the non-delegation of the personal representative's responsibilities to ascertain when an estate tax return is due and to ensure that it is timely filed, and the delegation that occurs when the personal representative `reasonably relies on expert advice concerning substantive questions of tax law, such as whether liability exists in the first instance.' Hagans, 634 A.2d at 1226 (quoting Estate of Smith, 767 S.W.2d 29, 35-36 (Mo.1989) (en banc)). Estate of Smith recognized that when the latter situation occurs, although the estate, as opposed to the personal representative, had to pay the penalties, [t]he estate [was] not without a remedy for the damages it ha[d] sustained.... [The] personal representative[] can bring a malpractice action on behalf of the estate against [the estate accountant]. 767 S.W.2d at 36 (reversing order directing personal representative to pay penalties for failure to file proper and timely tax returns). Moreover, it is not clear that an estate is without recourse even when penalties derive solely from late filings of tax returns. At base, [ Boyle ] involved whether a penalty for late filing was owed; it did not address the question who would be responsible for the penalty imposed, the estate or the executor. Estate of Smith, 767 S.W.2d at 35. [5] Nor did it suggest that a personal representative, even one at fault, would be precluded from seeking contribution from another personal representative (or from a lawyer or accountant) who was also at fault. Such legal issues cannot be meaningfully addressed until the record is more fully developed. To be sure, as personal representatives who owed fiduciary duties to the estate, the Pairs and Mr. Queen were required to file certain tax forms. See D.C.Code § 20-702 (2001); 26 U.S.C. § 6075(a) (2009); Elkins, 692 A.2d at 912 (The law generally imposes on a fiduciary both the power and the duty to file tax returns and to pay any taxes owed on behalf of the estate. ...). No one contests that the estate suffered substantial penalties as a result of both improper preparation and late filing of the estate tax returns. However, the trial court did not determine whether the failure to file timely returns was [] due to a lack of diligence or dereliction of duty on the part of [the Pairs] with regard to ascertaining and meeting filing deadlines, [or] rather due to [their reasonable] reliance on [professionals'] erroneous advice and assistance regarding substantive issues. Estate of Smith, 767 S.W.2d at 36. So the trial court erred by relying generally on Boyle to conclude that the Pairs were liable for the tax penalties and that their malpractice claims were barred by the doctrine of contributory negligence. See id. at 35 (trial court erred by relying on [ Boyle to find] that the failure to file timely estate tax returns was not excused by the personal representative's reliance on the accountant to whom he had delegated the responsibility). [6] On this record, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the Pairs were guilty of negligence per se. Moreover, when an estate has multiple representatives, [a]s a general rule, co-personal representatives are jointly and severally liable [only] if they act together or one approves or acquiesces in the improper conduct of the other. In re Estate of Chrisman, 746 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Mo. App. E.D.1988); Matter of Estate of Bartlett, 680 P.2d 369, 379 (Okla.1984) (co-representatives of estate are jointly and severally liable if they act together or one approves or acquiesces in improper conduct of the other); Walker v. Walker's Ex'rs, 88 Ky. 615, 11 S.W. 718, 721 (1889) ([O]ne representative is not bound for the acts of the other, unless he has such facts before him as would convince one of ordinary prudence that the assets in the hands of his co-representative are unsafe or being wasted.). [7] We cannot tell from the parties' briefs or the current record whether, or how, the Pairs and Mr. Queen allocated the various duties of a personal representative.