Opinion ID: 1741203
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: should the trial court have removed mr. costello as executor?

Text: Traditionally, the chancellor enjoys a great measure of discretion in this area. Matter of Estate of Flowers, 493 So.2d 950 (Miss. 1986); Stribling v. Washington, 204 Miss. 529, 37 So.2d 759 (1948); Nutt v. State, 96 Miss. 473, 51 So. 401 (1910). Removal is warranted where the executor fails to bring to the management of the estate the degree of care that an ordinary person would exercise in the conduct of his or her own affairs. Harper v. Harper, 491 So.2d 189, 203 (Miss. 1986); Hancock v. Reedy, 181 Miss. 830, 180 So. 81 (1938). Such was not the case here. The only evidence of possible mismanagement was the closing of Mrs. Hall's savings accounts and the removal of the money to Washington. The chancellor remedied that situation by ordering the return of the money and the posting of a bond in excess of the amount of money involved. In so protecting the estate, the chancellor's failure to take further action against Mr. Costello should be left to his discretion. We therefore find no merit in the cross-appeal. REVERSED AND REMANDED ON DIRECT APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL. WALKER, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE and HAWKINS, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.