Nesmith v. Pierce, A97A0745
| Decision Date | 17 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. A97A0745,A97A0745 |
| Citation | 487 S.E.2d 687,226 Ga.App. 851 |
| Parties | , 97 FCDR 2394 NESMITH v. PIERCE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Bart, J. Wiley Ellis, Tracy A. O'Connell, Savannah, for appellant.
Robert E. Falligant, Jr., Savannah, for appellee.
Carnie Nesmith appeals the probate court's order removing her as co-executor of her daughter Azilee Henry's estate, and also the probate court's order denying her petition for attorney fees and granting the co-executor John Pierce's petition for extra compensation. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the judgment of the probate court.
1. First, Nesmith claims the probate court erred in removing her as co-executor. Pierce filed the petition to have Nesmith removed after a dispute over the value to be placed on some real property owned by the decedent. Pierce, an attorney who also had experience in the real estate business, offered to sell the property himself without charging a commission. He had two appraisals submitted, one for $130,000 and the other for $142,500. Nesmith disregarded these valuations and wanted Pierce to list the house at $170,000 and include rugs appraised at something over $3,400. Pierce agreed to list it for $170,000.
He testified that he showed the house to eighteen prospective purchasers and received two offers, one for $126,850 and another for $155,000 cash. Pierce wanted to accept the $155,000 offer, but Nesmith was unwilling. She wanted to make a counteroffer of $160,000 and exclude the rugs. Pierce was concerned the buyer would change her mind if a counteroffer was made and accepted the $155,000 in spite of Nesmith's objection.
Pierce also called a real estate agent to testify at the hearing. The agent stated that units in the development were not selling well and that $155,000 was an excellent offer.
Pierce testified that problems between the co-executors were greater than a simple disagreement over the value of the real estate. He stated that Nesmith wanted to distribute the estate immediately after qualifying as executor, had little understanding of tax requirements, wanted to keep estate funds in low-yielding accounts, wanted to leave the decedent's jewelry in her apartment in a safe instead of a safety deposit box, and tried to purchase personal property from the estate at substantially below the appraised value. Nesmith did not testify herself, but her niece and granddaughter both testified that Nesmith was rational, alert, and capable of handling money and making financial decisions.
The probate court granted the petition to remove Nesmith, finding that it was "in the best interest of the Estate that Carnie F. Nesmith be ... removed as Co-Executrix...." This appeal followed.
"The probate court has broad discretionary powers under OCGA § 53-7-148, including the authority to remove an executor upon a showing of waste, mismanagement, or that for any reason he is unfit for the trust reposed in him." Gray v. McKenna, 202 Ga.App. 685, 686, 415 S.E.2d 295 (1992). "Where the personal interests of the representative of an estate conflict with the interest of the estate, such fact, in the discretion of the probate judge, or in the discretion of the jury on appeal may be sufficient ground for removal of such representative." Fountain v. Cabe, 242 Ga. 787, 789, 251 S.E.2d 529 (1979).
Here, the evidence as discussed above, showed that Nesmith, the decedent's 89-year-old mother, did not fully comprehend the duties and responsibilities of an executor and may have been acting in a manner detrimental to the estate. Accordingly, we hold the probate court acted within its discretion in removing Nesmith as co-executor.
2. Next, Nesmith claims the probate court erred in awarding Pierce extra compensation for extraordinary services. Nesmith argues that Pierce stated he would not charge the estate to handle the sale of the property and, therefore, he cannot now ask the court for extra compensation. Nesmith also contends the sale of the house was part of the ordinary duties of the executor and does not rise to the level of extraordinary services.
While Pierce agrees that he said initially he would not charge a commission on the sale of the property, he states he was entitled to change his mind and request extraordinary compensation because of the problems with Nesmith over the sale. As discussed above, Pierce testified he got two appraisals on the property, but since Nesmith insisted on disregarding the appraisals and listing the property at $170,000, he talked to numerous prospective buyers and showed the house eighteen times with only two offers. He said it took more time than he anticipated to dispose of the property because Nesmith insisted on an asking price that was too high. Pierce stated he could have employed a real estate agent to handle this matter, but felt that, had he done so, the estate would not have received as much for the property.
The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowen v. Estate of Hughley
...268 Ga.App. 835, 840(4), 602 S.E.2d 871 (2004); Head v. Head, 234 Ga.App. 469, 477(4), 507 S.E.2d 214 (1998); Nesmith v. Pierce, 226 Ga.App. 851, 487 S.E.2d 687 (1997). But Rowen contends that we should apply the "plain legal error" standard because the probate court's judgment rests upon a......
-
In re Estate of Dunn
...to make returns, or if "for any reason [she] is unfit for the trust reposed in [her]." OCGA § 53-7-148; see Nesmith v. Pierce, 226 Ga.App. 851, 852(1), 487 S.E.2d 687 (1997). The word "unfit," as used in this statute, is given a broad meaning and is not merely limited to physical, mental, o......
-
Wallace v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., A00A2266.
...duty, causation and damages." Traina Enterprises v. RaceTrac Petroleum, 241 Ga.App. 18, 525 S.E.2d 712 (1999); Nesmith v. Pierce, 226 Ga.App. 851, 852(1), 487 S.E.2d 687 (1997). ...
-
In re Estate of Zeigler
...powers to remove an estate administrator upon a showing of unfitness for the trust reposed in him. Nesmith v. Pierce, 226 Ga.App. 851, 852(1), 487 S.E.2d 687 (1997). "[T]he relevant question in reviewing a removal order is whether the trial court had grounds to conclude that there was `good......
-
Wills, Trusts, and Administration of Estates - James C. Rehberg
...S.E.2d 593 (1940). 73. See Morrison v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 150 Ga. 54, 102 S.E. 354 (1920). 74. O.C.G.A. Sec. 53-7-148 (1997). 75. 226 Ga. App. 851, 487 S.E.2d 687 (1997). 76. Id. at 851-52, 487 S.E.2d at 688. 77. Id. at 852, 487 S.E.2d at 688. 78. Id. 79. Id. 80. O.C.G.A. Sec. 53-6-149......