Haines v. Kimble, No. 32844 (WV 3/17/2006), 32844
| Decision Date | 17 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 32844,32844 |
| Parties | LINDA J. HAINES, M.D., BENEFICIARY OF THE ESTATE OF RALPH W. HAINES, Deceased, Petitioner Below, Appellant, v. PAMELA K. KIMBLE, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RALPH W. HAINES, Deceased, Respondent Below, Appellee. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Hampshire County, Honorable John Henning, Judge, (sitting by special designation), Civil Action No. 03-C-128.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. Syllabus Point 4, Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W.Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996).
2. "The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy." Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012, 216 S.E.2d 769 (1975).
Michael E. Caryl, Esq., Martinsburg, West Virginia and Curtis G. Power, III, Esq., Winchester, Virginia, Attorneys for Appellant.
Royce B. Saville, Esq., Romney, WV, Attorney for Appellee.
The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
JUSTICE STARCHER dissents and reserves the right to file a dissenting opinion.
JUSTICE BENJAMIN dissents and reserves the right to file a dissenting opinion.
This case is before this Court upon appeal of a final order of the Circuit Court of Hampshire County entered November 19, 2004.1 In that order, the circuit court affirmed the Hampshire County Commission's refusal to remove the appellee and respondent below, Pamela K. Kimble, as the executrix of the estate of the testator, Ralph W. Haines. The appellant and petitioner below, Linda J. Haines, who is the daughter of the testator, appeals the order and contends that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for removal of the appellee as executrix of her father's estate. The appellant is the sole beneficiary of her father's estate and argues that the hostile relations between her and the appellee have already seriously damaged the testator's estate and will continue to damage it unless the appellee is removed as executix. After reviewing the facts of the case, the issues presented, and the relevant statutory and case law, this Court reverses the decision of the circuit court.
On May 3, 2002, the testator, Ralph W. Haines, died. Prior to his death, the testator was a practicing member of the West Virginia State Bar and had been for a period of more than sixty years. He was well versed in the law of estates in West Virginia and as a member of the West Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, he wrote the test questions on wills and estates. At the time of his death, the testator had accumulated an estate believed to be worth more than $10 million.
Pursuant to his will dated March 16, 1993, which was admitted to probate before the County Commission of Hampshire County on May 13, 2002, the testator named the appellee, Pamela K. Kimble, as executrix of his estate. The appellee had been a secretary/legal assistant to the testator for a period of twenty-six years prior to his death. According to his will, the appellant, Linda Haines, who is also the testator's daughter and only child, was the sole beneficiary of his estate.
On August 1, 2002, the appellant filed a petition for removal of the appellee as executrix of the testator's estate. Following the appellant's petition, the Hampshire County Commission referred the matter to William H. Judy, III, a fiduciary commissioner from Hardy County, West Virginia. After an October 23, 2002, hearing, Commissioner Judy issued his Order/Recommendation denying the relief requested. Specifically, he found that the appellee had not failed nor refused to perform her duties as executrix. On July 17, 2003, the county commission affirmed the findings of the fiduciary commissioner. On August 21, 2003, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of the county commission's order. On September 10, 2003, the appellant asserted additional allegations in support of removal of the appellee as executrix, but the county commission affirmed its prior decision.
On November 5, 2003, the appellant filed a petition for appeal in the circuit court from the rulings of the county commission's order. On December 9, 2003, the appellant then filed a motion for preliminary relief in the circuit court seeking the temporary removal of the appellee as executrix of the estate pending the final adjudication of the appeal. On January 22, 2004, the circuit court denied the appellant's motion and ordered the parties to appear for mediation. The mediation, conducted on May 14, 2004, did not result in a settlement of the matter. Then, on October 4, 2004, the circuit court held hearings with regard to the underlying issues and on November 19, 2004, it affirmed the prior order of the county commission.
In its November 19, 2004, order, the circuit court found that the appellant interfered and refused to cooperate with the proper administration of the estate and that such actions compounded the already difficult job of the appellee as executrix. Moreover, the circuit court stated that the testator appointed the appellee because she had intimate knowledge of his affairs and could be relied upon to carry out his wishes and that she had well performed her duties in the complex administration of the testator's estate. The circuit court also concluded that the hostility between the appellee and the appellant resulted from the actions of the appellant and not based upon any action of the appellee adverse to the interest of the appellant. Finally, the circuit court found that the appellee reasonably took into consideration the requests and desires of the appellant subject to her paramount duty to administer the estate in accordance with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Service. This appeal followed.
As explained in Syllabus Point 4 of Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W.Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996),
We begin our review in this appeal with the appellant's argument that the rules for removal of a fiduciary, announced by this Court in Highland v. Empire National Bank of Clarksburg, 114 W.Va. 498, 172 S.E. 551 (1933), control the outcome in this case. The appellant states that this Court's holding in Highland established an unambiguous principle that, "[w]here inharmonious or unfriendly relations exist between the trustees, or between them and the cestui que trust [the beneficiaries], there may be sufficient reason for removal." Thus, the appellant contends that Highland makes it clear that an executrix can be removed for something other than failure to perform her fiduciary duty. The appellant further argues that Highland stands for the proposition that carrying out the primary purposes of a testator's will must supercede keeping a particular fiduciary when the two objectives conflict.
Likewise, the appellant argues that in Welsh v. Welsh, 136 W.Va. 914, 69 S.E. 2d 34 (1952), this Court held that the general mandate to give effect to the testator's intent "should not prevent the prompt removal of a personal representative who is incompetent or who fails or refuses to perform his clear duties." Moreover, the appellant believes that the primary intent of the testator in this case was to pass his entire estate to the appellant, while his secondary and subordinate intent was to name the appellee as executrix. Finally, the appellant states that regardless of which party is responsible for the hostile interpersonal relations between the parties, Highland provides that, "it is not essential how such relations originated, or whether the trustee, whose removal is sought, caused them by his own misconduct or not."
Conversely, the appellee responds that the Highland case stands for the proposition that when you have co-executors and co-trustees who must act jointly and work together, but who cannot do so, then there may be cause for removal of one or more of the fiduciaries. In this case, however, since the appellee is the sole executrix of the estate, she contends that there is no possibility of such a conflict and thus this situation is distinguishable from Highland. We must disagree with the appellee's interpretation of Highland and hold that it is directly applicable to this case.
In this case, while there may be facts in dispute as to the specific reasons surrounding the hostile relations between the appellee and the appellant, there is no dispute that such hostile relations in fact do exist and that the parties cannot work together with any sense of civility or common purpose. We believe that such hostile relations, regardless of who is at fault, necessarily have already damaged, and in the future will continue to damage, the estate and the appellant's interest in it.
This disharmony between the appellant and the appellee has brought to light numerous troubling allegations surrounding the administration of the testator's estate. For instance, the appellant maintains that the record is replete with examples of how the appellee's actions have hindered the proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial