Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

524.3-203, persons who are nominated by a power conferred in a will are
accorded priority for appointment as personal representative. However,
“no person is qualified to serve as personal representative who is . . . a
person whom the court finds unsuitable in formal proceedings.” Id. at
subd. (f)(2). Generally, if the named personal representative is willing,
suitable, and competent, he or she shall be appointed notwithstanding that
there is another whom the appointing court might consider more suitable
or competent. “Suitable” is not defined by statute; rather, the court
reasoned that suitability is determined by analyzing a proposed personal
representative’s level of experience and whether he or she has the
temperament and prudence to administer the estate. The court ultimately
upheld the district court’s finding of unsuitability because it found that
daughter had no experience dealing with the administration of assets. She
commenced probate proceedings after her father was deceased for more
than six months and, in the meantime, allowed estate expenses to go
unpaid. Furthermore, the court found that daughter lacked the appropriate
personality characteristics to administer the estate because she knowingly
made false allegations about the destruction of her father’s will.
Consequently, the district’s court’s determination that daughter was
unsuitable to serve as father’s personal representative was not an abuse of
discretion.
N. Formal Testacy Proceedings; Notice of Hearing on Petition: 3-403
1. Walker v. Bailey, 89 So.3d 297 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012). Failure of
court to hold hearing on distribution of wrongful death proceeds
violated father’s due process rights even though he received notice of
the hearing and did not object to the relief requested by the mother
set forth in the notice of hearing. Mother, as personal representative of
deceased child’s estate, petitioned for equitable distribution of wrongful
death proceeds. Pursuant to probate court rules, mother provided notice of
the petition to father. Father did not respond within the time prescribed by
statute, and the probate court entered an order awarding all funds to
mother prior to the hearing. The appeals court reversed the probate
court’s decision, holding that father’s due process rights were violated, in
part, because the notice scheduling the hearing only indicated that mother
was requesting to receive “a majority” of the proceeds, not the entire
proceeds. Moreover, no evidence was considered. Thus, the court
remanded the case for a new trial.
O. General Duties; Relation and Liability to Persons Interested in Estate;
Standing to Sue: 3-703
1. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Idaho v. Eisenman, 286 P.3d
185 (Idaho 2012). Decedent’s estate is not entitled to sue for wrongful
death damages because this claim is distinct from any action decedent
could have brought on her own behalf prior to death. Insurance
11