LOIS EWELL HENDERSON,
v.
ANNIE P. EWELL, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the removal of three co-administrators of an estate due to irreconcilable conflicts and failure to perform their statutory duties. The court held that appellate courts should rarely interfere with removal decisions when the trial court finds unfaithfulness and identifies conditions warranting removal.
The removal order was proper and must be affirmed. The trial court had sufficient grounds under Florida law to remove the co-administrators for failure to make returns and render accounts, as well as for mal-administration. An appellate court will not reverse a removal decree absent clear error or abuse of discretion.
“An appellate court is always disinclined to interfere with action taken by a court of first instance in the matter of removal of executors or administrators in cases where the court below has affirmatively found that the existing administrators have not faithfully performed their duties as such according to law”
Establishes the standard of review for removal decisions—appellate courts defer to trial courts absent clear error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames L. Ewell died and his estate was administered by three co-administrators: Lois Ewell Henderson, James G. Ewell, and Hunter N. Ewell. The co-admi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County removing as co-administrators of the estate of James L. Ewell, deceased, Lois Ewell Henderson, James G. Ewell and Hunter N. Ewell.
The Chancellor heard all the witnesses personally and expressly found in his decree that the evidence showed that the joint administrators were in irreconcilable conflict with each other regarding the management of the estate; that each administrator had been taking individual action without consulting his or her co-administrator and that a spirit of intense antagonism existed between the joint administrators ; that such conflict and dissension had been of long *325standing and had existed from the beginning; that all of this militated against the proper and profitable handling of the estate. The court further found that said administrators had failed to make reports of their acts and doings as required by the statutes pertaining to administrators and that it would be for the best interest of said estate that the joint administrators be removed and that a competent person be appointed in their stead. One W. R. Burt was accordingly so appointed as administrator cuín testamento annexo of the estate. The appeal is by Lois Ewell Henderson, one of the removed administrators.
An appellate court is always disinclined to interfere with action taken by a court of first instance in the matter of removal of executors or administrators in cases where the court below has affirmatively found that the existing administrators have not faithfully performed their duties as such according to law, and has further found that owing to other conditions made to appear to the court, that it will be for the best interest of the estate to remove executors or administrators and appoint a competent person to act in their stead. Nor will an appellate court reverse such a decree of removal in the absence of a showing of clear error or abuse of discretion in the making of the order complained of. 23 C. J. 1124.
Sufficient allegations were made, and sufficient causes were found by the court below, to sustain a removal of the joint administrators under Section 5560 C. G. L., 3695 R. G. S., which authorizes removals of such personal repre-. sentatives for failure to make returns and inyentories and render just and true accounts of the estate, as well as for mal-administration of the estate. Proceedings are authorized under Section 5561 C. G. L., 3696 R. G. S., to be instituted by any creditor, legatee, devisee, heir or distributee, or by any co-executor or co-administrator, or either of them, *326upon the administration bond. In this case the petition was filed by H'unter Ewell, a co-administrator with Lois Ewell Henderson and James Gibson Ewell, of the estate, and who is also an heir.
James G. Ewell confessed the petition and consented to his own removal.
A careful reading of the record fails to demonstrate wherein any error was committed by the circuit judge in ¡the making of the removal order appealed from, so it must of necessity be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wallace v. Luxmoore, 156 Fla. 725 (Fla. 1946)…e as in this the probate court cannot administer such relief as will give complete and adequate justice. Opitz v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 469, 67 So. 67; Allen v. Allen, 111 Fla. 733, 150 So. 237; Cole v. Cole, 106 Fla. 226, 143 So. 235; Henderson v. Ewell, 111 Fla. 324, 149 So. 372. In the case at bar the will brought in question provides for the creation of two trusts that are distinctly equitable in nature and it is shown that the provision for paying annuities has been in operation for sixteen years to the exc…
-
Kolb v. Levy, 104 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…epresentative is not found to require his removal. We find therefore that the county judge acted within his authority when he determined that it would be for the best interest of said estate that the co-executrix be removed. See Henderson v. Ewell, 111 Fla. 324, 149 So. 372; State ex rel. North v. Whitehurst, 14S Fla. 559, 1 So. 2d 175; In re Weltner’s Estate, 154 Fla. 292, 17 So. 2d 396, 398. Affirmed. CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur. . Section 734.11, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. “Any personal repr…
-
Gnaegy v. Morris, 330 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…sisters. In 2019, their father, Donald D. Forsht (the Decedent), died testate, 1 We review an order removing a personal representative for abuse of discretion. Boyles v. Jimenez, 330 So. 3d 953, 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (citing Henderson v. Ewell, 149 So. 372, 372 (1933)). We likewise review for abuse of discretion a trial court's decision “whether to remove a trustee.” Giller v. Grossman, 327 So. 3d 391, 393-94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citing Wallace v. Comprehensive Pers. Care Servs., Inc., 306 So. 3d 207,…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence