Opinion ID: 1726875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: denial of request to remove personal representative

Text: The children also claim that the county court erred in refusing to remove Kathleen as personal representative. A personal representative of an estate may be removed by a court upon the petition of an interested person in the estate if removal would be in the best interests of the estate, or if it is shown that a personal representative . . . intentionally misrepresented material facts in the proceedings leading to his [or her] appointment, or that the personal representative has disregarded an order of the court, has become incapable of discharging the duties of his [or her] office, or has mismanaged the estate or failed to perform any duty pertaining to the office. See § 30-2454(b). [7] The children first assert an argument similar to their jurisdictional claim. They argue that Kathleen should have been removed because she made claims for homestead allowance, family allowance, and exempt property more than 3 years after Edward's death. Whether improper claims were made against the estate has not been adjudicated by the county court. An appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal that was not passed upon by the trial court. In re Estate of Eriksen, 271 Neb. 806, 716 N.W.2d 105 (2006). Thus, we do not address the children's argument concerning alleged claims made against the estate by Kathleen. Second, the children argue that Kathleen has a conflict of interest that precludes her from acting as personal representative of Edward's estate. In October 2005, after Kathleen was appointed personal representative to administer the estate without supervision, she signed a deed of distribution transferring the residential property to herself. The children claim that in so doing, Kathleen failed to act impartially and did not consider the children's inheritance rights. The children assert that once they petitioned for Kathleen's removal in January 2006, she should have returned the property to the estate. Because she did not do so, the children claim Kathleen has a conflict of interest and should be removed from serving as personal representative. The record does not show that Kathleen has intentionally misrepresented any facts, disregarded any court orders, become incapable of discharging the duties of her office, or mismanaged the estate. Nor does the record show that Kathleen has exhibited bad faith in performing her duties as personal representative, as the children have alleged. The children's petition for formal adjudication of the intestate estate has not yet been heard by the county court; in other words, proper distribution of the estate has not been determined. During the hearing on the children's removal request, Kathleen stated that if the court were to determine that the residence should have been distributed differently, she would distribute it in accordance with the court's ruling. To the extent that the children's argument stands for the notion that Kathleen cannot serve as personal representative because of her interest in the estate, this court has previously rejected such notion. Those who are directly interested in estates are regularly selected and appointed as personal representatives. See In re Estate of Rosso, 270 Neb. 323, 701 N.W.2d 355 (2005). That the named personal representative is interested in the estate and that his or her interest may become hostile to those of the other interested beneficiaries does not necessarily render the personal representative legally incompetent. Id. at 332, 701 N.W.2d at 363-64. The county court applied the language of § 30-2454(b) and found that no cause existed to remove Kathleen as personal representative. Based on an examination for error appearing on the record, we conclude that the county court's ruling conformed to the law, was supported by competent evidence, and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.