Opinion ID: 1949714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the executor's fee inadequate?

Text: Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-299 (1972) states: On the final settlement the court shall make allowance to the executor or administrator for the property or the estate which has been lost, or has perished or decreased in value, without his fault; and profit shall not be allowed him in consequence of increase. The court shall allow to an executor or administrator, as compensation for his trouble, either in partial or final settlements, not less than one nor more than seven per centum of the amount of the estate administered; in addition to which the court may allow him his necessary expenses. (Emphasis added). The commission awarded to the plaintiff ($1500) is approximately 6/10 of one percent of the value of the assets of the estate at the date of death. Appellant contends $1500 is palpably low and manifestly inadequate. The appellee, alleging maladministration, argues the court was authorized to award a reduced fee or even no fee at all. Appellee contends there was maladministration because the executor paid the single probated claim by liquidating a portion of the assets of appellee's specific bequest instead of paying the probated claim by first liquidating the assets in the residuary bequest. Stovall v. Stovall, 360 So.2d 679 (Miss. 1978); In Re Torian's Estate, 321 So.2d 287 (Miss. 1975). As noted before, the appellee joined in the petition of the executor asking permission to liquidate specified stock to pay the probated claim. The appellee should not now be allowed to use the procedure she consented to as grounds for maladministration. Fidelity and Deposit Co. v. Doughtry, 181 Miss. 586, 179 So. 846 (1938). See also, Matter of Chambers 458 So.2d 691 (Miss. 1984). In determining the executor's allowance some confusion may arise in interpreting the phrase the amount of the estate administered found in § 91-7-299. In Schwander v. Rubel, 221 Miss. 875, 75 So.2d 45 (1954) this Court held, regarding the executor's fees, We think this compensation should be fixed within the limits of the statute on the gross personal estate actually accounted for by the executors in good faith.  The gross value of the estate in Schwander was approximately $300,000. The case was remanded for the chancellor to award compensation to the executors within the limits of the applicable statute. 221 Miss. at 900, 75 So.2d at 55. The gross value of the estate in the present case was in excess of $229,000. Absent a finding of maladministration, this Court holds that this case be remanded for the chancellor to award compensation to the executor within the limits of § 91-7-299. Ralston v. Bank of Clarksdale, 188 Miss. 345, 194 So. 923 (1940). In awarding the exact amount of the executor's fee, inside the statutory guidelines, the chancellor will be more familiar than this Court with what the executor has actually done in relation to what his attorney has done. As stated in Ralston, 188 Miss. at 351, 194 So. at 924: There are numerous elements that enter into the consideration of what amount of compensation should be allowed within the limits fixed by law, and the mechanical work of making out the reports and of collecting the money and of disbursing it is not the only thing to be considered. The skill, the responsibility, and the amount involved are elements that the Court will take into consideration in fixing such compensation. Service skillfully, promptly, and efficiently rendered should be recognized as being of value to the estate in administering it and the speedy disposition of the matter winding up and settling the estate are important elements and are factors to be recognized and encouraged. This Court reverses and remands this case to the Chancery Court of Bolivar County to set the executor's fees within the statutory limits, and to review any increase of attorneys' fees, if the court in its discretion, deems proper, in light of this opinion regarding executor's commission. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.