Opinion ID: 1122251
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Removal Of The Executors.

Text: Pearl Hartt, widow of John K. Hartt, deceased, together with five out of six of her daughters who were also daughters of the deceased, filed their petition in the matter of the probate of the estate of the deceased, asking in substance that Robert Bible and Clarence A. Brimmer, appointed as executors under the will of deceased, be removed, and that they should not be appointed as trustees under the will although named herein as such, for the following reasons: (1) The personal interest of the executors conflict with and are adverse to their official duties as such executors and trustees. (2) There are hostile feelings between the executors and petitioners which will or are likely to interfere with the orderly and proper management of the estate and trust. (3) The executors have neglected to comply with mandatory duties imposed on them by statute. Reference to the particulars of these objections, or at least those worthy to be mentioned, will be made in the discussion which follows: The court granted the prayer of the petitioners, removed the executors as being incompetent to administer the estate and directed them to turn the property of the estate over to a special administrator. The executors and Marjorie Higley, one of the daughters of testator, have appealed to this court. The plaintiffs will be referred to as respondents. The term appellants includes the executors and Marjorie Higley. Before proceeding further we should, we think, refer to some general principles which have been enunciated by the courts in this connection. It is stated that an order of removal is harsh and severe; that it is serious, that it is drastic. In re Bell's Estate, 135 Cal. 194, 67 P. 123; Pyle v. Pyle, 137 App.Div. 568, 122 N.Y.S. 256. In re Bailey's Estate, 306 Pa. 334, 159 A. 549, 551, the court stated: It is a serious matter to dismiss trustees appointed by will; much more should be shown by those who wish them dismissed than would be the case where the trustees are appointed by the court. Perry on Trusts (6th Ed.) 276, says: `The power of removal of trustees appointed by a deed or will ought to be exercised sparingly by the courts. There must be a clear necessity for interference to save the trust property. Mere error or even breach of trust may not be sufficient; there must be such misconduct as to show want of capacity or of fidelity putting the trust in jeopardy.' Irregularities not directly harmful in managing the estate will be overlooked. In re Gerbereux' Will, 148 Misc. 461, 266 N.Y.S. 134. If the court can readily remedy a matter of complaint, no removal will be ordered. Massey v. Stout, 4 Del. Ch. 274; 2 Bancroft's Probate Practice, 2d Ed., 184; Wilson v. Smoot, 186 Ky. 194, 216 S.W. 129. In 90 C.J.S. 193, 194, relating to trusts, it is stated: In order to warrant removal, there must be such gross negligence or misconduct as to evidence a want either of capacity or fidelity, putting the trust in jeopardy. The misconduct must be willful. Massey v. Stout, supra. See also 33 C.J.S. 1037. In Smith v. Heyward, 115 S.C. 145, 105 S.E. 275, 282, the court stated: The courts have ever been reluctant to take the management of an estate from those to whom it has been confided by the testator, for to that extent the intention expressed in his will would be defeated. No doubt, the courts have the power to do it in a proper case. But for obvious reasons it is a power which should be exercised with great caution, and not at all, unless it is made to appear to be necessary for the protection of the estate, to prevent loss or injury to it from misappropriation, maladministration or fraud. In Stairley v. Rabe, McM. Eq. 22, the court said: `The rule certainly is that the administration will not be taken from an executor without strong reasons, because, says Lord Erskin in Middleton v. Dodswell, 18 Ves. 268, it is for the testator, not the court, to say in whom the trust for administration of his effects shall be reposed.' In Shelton v. McHaney, 343 Mo. 119, 119 S.W.2d 951, 954, 960, the court stated in part: A trustee will not `be removed for every violation of duty, or even breach of trust, if the fund is in no danger of being lost.    There must be a clear necessity for interference to save the trust property. Mere error, or even breach of trust, may not be sufficient; there must be such misconduct as to show a want of capacity or of fidelity, putting the trust in jeopardy.' 1 Perry on Trusts, 7th Ed., § 276, notes 93, 94.    Defendants are testamentary trustees, named by the testator. `The court will less readily remove a trustee named by the settlor than a trustee appointed by the court or by a third person who is by the terms of the trust authorized to appoint a trustee. The court will not ordinarily remove a trustee named by the settlor upon a ground existing at the time of his appointment and known to the settlor and in spite of which the settlor appointed him, although the court would not have appointed him trustee.' 1 Restatement of the Law of Trusts, p. 280, § 107(a),f.