Opinion ID: 895117
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subsection (2)Misapplied or Embezzled

Text: Sandra's first allegation is that John misapplied or embezzled part of the property committed to his care. She claims that when John attempted to split the proceeds from the potential sale of the Anderson County land 50/50, he improperly tried to divert part of the proceeds to himself since it was ultimately decided that the estate was owed 58.59% of the proceeds. We presume the Legislature chose its words carefully and intentionally. [9] Probate Code section 149C(a)(2) associates misapplication [10] with embezzlement; [11] accordingly, we give these terms a related meaning [12] and interpret them to authorize removal if the trial court believes the executor was engaged in subterfuge or wrongful misuse. [13] The evidence here shows that this dispute was, at bottom, a good-faith disagreement between John and Sandra as to how to split the value of the improvements between John and the estate. The record contains no evidence of dishonesty or misappropriation on John's part, much less enough evidence to conclude that Sandra proved misapplication or embezzlement as a matter of law. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to remove John as independent executor on this basis.