Opinion ID: 2331585
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 58

Heading: Appointment of Successor Personal Representative

Text: Hoge contends that once appellant Elliott was removed as personal representative, Elliott no longer had standing to contest the appointment of Hoge as successor personal representative. Under D.C.Code ง 11-721(b) (2001), only a party aggrieved may appeal from an order or judgment of a trial court. See also Super. Ct. Prob. R. 8(a) ([a]ny person who is aggrieved by an order or judgment and who participated in the trial court's determination may take an appeal). A person is aggrieved when that person's legal rights have been infringed or denied. In re C.T., 724 A.2d 590, 595 (D.C.1999). If a person has suffered no injury to his legal rights or to some legally protected relationship, he has no standing to appeal. In re Estate of Jacobson, 387 A.2d 590, 591 (D.C.1978). Although he remains an interested party (because he is still a legatee), appellant Elliott sustained no injury to his legal rights or to any legally protected relationship from the appointment of appellant Hoge as successor personal representative. An appeal may be dismissed if the appellant lacks standing as an aggrieved party. In re C.T., supra, 724 A.2d at 595. Since Elliott has no standing to appeal Hoge's appointment as successor personal representative, we dismiss Elliott's appeal of that portion of the November 14, 2001 summary order. Therefore, the trial court's summary hearing order of November 14, 2001 is affirmed.