The statute governing removal of personal representatives ("PR") in Florida is 733.504. Acrimony – no matter how heated – is usually NOT sufficient to warrant removal of a PR [click here for recent example]. However, the outcome may be different if you can establish a detailed factual record proving that the acrimony is such that a significant portion of the estate will be eaten up in litigation expenses if the designated PR is not removed. Note the shift in emphasis from "I don’t like him" so please remove him as PR, to "the estate assets will be wasted" so please remove him as PR.
Mark Fass of the New York Law Journal recently published an article entitled ‘Vexatious’ Attorney Conduct Results in Removal of Executor. In that NY case, the PR (referred to as "executor") was removed based upon a detailed factual record proving that a PR’s representation by a particular law firm was so likely to result in litigation and waste of estate assets, that the PR should be removed. The court agreed, and removed the PR. Here’s an excerpt from the linked-to article:
The "vexatious conduct" of the attorneys in the distribution of a woman’s estate has led to the disqualification of their client as executrix of the estate.
The complex familial dispute began with the intestate death of 83-year-old Roseanna DeLaune, in 1997. Pursuant to statute, her sister, Paula M. Venezia, was appointed administrator; her heirs included her disabled nephew, William Pennington III.
Venezia hired her childhood friend from Manhattan’s Little Italy, attorney Alfred Sica, to serve as counsel. He in turn hired the firm now known as Vaneria & Spanos.
In 2003, Venezia, 85, died, leaving the entirety of her own million-dollar estate to the same nephew, Pennington. She nominated her goddaughter, Joanne Zaccaria, to serve as executrix. Zaccaria, who had no role in the disbursement of the first estate, hired the same counsel — Sica and Vaneria & Spanos.
Meanwhile, over the intervening six years, the administration of DeLaune’s estate had devolved into what Sica later termed "combat" between himself and Pennington.
Loath to let history repeat itself, Pennington objected to Zaccaria’s appointment, based in part on her selection of the attorneys he crossed swords with following the death of his first aunt.
Brooklyn Surrogate Margarita Lopez Torres has granted the petition, disqualifying Zaccaria from overseeing Venezia’s estate. The surrogate cited the "vexatious conduct" of Zaccaria’s chosen attorneys during the administration of the previous estate.
"To permit Zaccaria to serve as executor, along with her chosen counsel of Vaneria & Spanos and Alfred Sica, Esq., would be detrimental to this estate," Surrogate Lopez Torres held in Estate of Venezia, 2100/2003.
"Because of the excessively hostile and bitter relationship between the nominated fiduciary, her counsel and Pennington, the appointment of Zaccaria as fiduciary … would have the practical effect of rendering the bequests of decedent to her nephew a nullity, as this estate would surely be taken down the inevitable road to further combative litigation," she said.
The concept of "issue framing" is nothing new in politics [click here]. Same idea applies in litigation. How an issue is "framed" in estate proceedings is everything. If a litigant frames the issue in terms of his or her personal interests, a probate court is not likely to respond favorably. By contrast, as the linked-to article shows, if the litigant frames the issue in terms of preserving estate assets – the likelihood of success goes way up.