Court supervision

My father-in-law's estate is now court supervised. The oldest daughter was given the position of personal representative. He died July2007 and none of the money has been passed out to any of the beneficiaries, except for the youngest sibling who didn't sign the paper to have the estate supervised. The will states that if "C" is unable to do the job, that "L" be appointed to the the replacement. "C" isn't doing what the position requires. She had a deposition and lied through most of it. My question, since the dad said that if "C" can't serve as pr can "L" be appointed to that position after they remove "C" as the present execturix? I feel that "L" should be able to. We live in Indiana. What do other people think?

If the estate is now court supervised, it would seem that the court has already made its determination as to who is best suited to manage the estate---and "L" apparently, for whatever reason, isn't it.
While it may have been what the deceased wanted, the court isn't bound to follow those directives. The court makes determinations based on what course of action best suits the confines of the law. Apparently the court feels that they are a better choice than "L" to handle this for whatever reason.

If the court has already taken over supervision of the estate, is there a reason in particular you want "L" to do it instead of the court? Wouldn't having the court handle this avoid any more delay and confusion and fighting amongst the family?

If the estate is now court supervised, it would seem that the court has already made its determination as to who is best suited to manage the estate---and "L" apparently, for whatever reason, isn't it.
While it may have been what the deceased wanted, the court isn't bound to follow those directives. The court makes determinations based on what course of action best suits the confines of the law. Apparently the court feels that they are a better choice than "L" to handle this for whatever reason.

If the court has already taken over supervision of the estate, is there a reason in particular you want "L" to do it instead of the court? Wouldn't having the court handle this avoid any more delay and confusion and fighting amongst the family?
__________________
Grace

What more delay would there be? "C" has already delayed it way too much. "L" has already been the executor of their aunt's will and it was done 1,2,3. "C" is taking forever. You can't tell me that there hasn't been a buyer for the almost 13 acres of land,including the house, during the year. "C" should have been out of the house and the property sold not too long after the auction. Am waiting to see what the judge says. Because of what "C" has done to her own siblings, it remains what will happen to her. She is already saying that she and her husband are going to build their new house with the inheritance from their dad. You know how much it costs to build a house....

Thanks for your opinion. Will remember what you said and will let you know the outcome.

j.

These are a lot of rhetorical questions that have no answer.

And, you didn't answer me when I asked why you wouldn't want the court to handle the estate. I don't doubt "L" is capable, but the reality is the court already made its decision as to whom should be appointed.

Also, I never said there was never a buyer for the house---"You can't tell me there hasn't been a buyer"... etc....I never even mentioned it. I don't know what has happened.

Bottom line--you think the estate is being mishandled. You may be right.

But, the COURT has to be the one to decide. And, in the interest of fairness, it has appointed itself as executor over the estate. I assumed this would make you feel better, not worse.

Grace,

There is soo much to this "saga". I will try my best to re-explain this. Carla is very greedy. Lori and her other sister and my husband asked to have the estate court supervised to watch and make sure that Carla won't spend anymore of the money that their dad left in the estate. When the estate wasn't court supervised,there was an auction at the estate and there was over $9,000 left for the heirs. Carla could have, or should have, divided up the money between the rest of them,but she didn't. The youngest sibling,who didn't sign to have the estate supervised, she gave him money before any money was given to anyone else. She said that she did that becuase " her father wouldn't want him to be homeless". That is a bunch of bull because he makes more than she does and he is a supervisor. And she is just a "laborer". She can't take it when she doesn't have control of things. Number one, her husband has no job, because of his back. He does have back problems but He can still work part time. He has been caught working on the roof of their dad's house. Now a person with a bad back shouldn't even be up there. At least I don't thnk so. Bills should have already been pd that he had and plus he never had any debts. Thomas and his sisters just wanted someone else to temporarily watch Carla and make sure that no more of the money is being spent for what she wants. She is a person who can hold a grudge for years and never let it go.

I hope that I explained this situation to you the best that I can. They are going to petition,after she signs the deposition, to have her removed from the estate and premises. Lori can get the property sold faster than Carla has done. Like I said in an earlier post of Lori taking care of their aunt's will. It took just 6 months, no year like this has been.

You don't have to explain all of that to me----none of that changes what I thought was your original question---the issue of why can't L cannot take over if C isn't properly doing their job.

The answer to that hasn't changed. You said the estate is court supervised----this last posting you said they asked for the estate to be court supervised. Yet you are here asking why cannot "L" supervise it. If that is what you wanted, why didn't they ask the judge to appoint her? Why did they ASK for it to be court supervised?

At the hearing to approve or deny this request---what happened? Please just tell me what happened at that hearing. Was evidence given of the sisters alleged misuse of time, funds, and property? Did the court recognize the same? Was "L" offered to the court as a replacement? Did the court rule differently and assume supervision itself?

You asked rhetorically earlier "What other delays could happen?" In the courts eyes, taking a gamble on another incompetent family member IS just that a gamble--and a huge delay and waste of the courts time and resources, which is, apparently why they chose to supervise it themselves.

Although "court supervised" is a bit of a vague term---ALL probate is court supervised. When I exectued my late husbands estate, I filed papers with the court, they asked questions, they held me accountable. All of that is, in my opinion, court supervised. However, it seems you are labeling something else "court supervision"--by use of this term do you mean a DIFFERENT EXECUTOR was appointed? A COURT appointed executor? ( as opposed to L or C?)

Also, another thing I wanted to point out ( and this is NOT in defense of C---I have no idea if she is capable or dutiful or not)--this is, as a matter of law, an important point. Some things you say are being done are, if that is an accurate depiction, obviously not the way an estate is to be handled. And, for those you should seek legal remedy. However other things have nothing to do with the estate from a FACTUAL objective point of view---but are simply PERSONAL issues. This is one example of many : "She can't take it when she doesn't have control of things. Number one, her husband has no job, because of his back. He does have back problems but He can still work part time."

THis is your opinion and you very well may be right. But, that doesn't support your contention the estate is being mishandled. Also, the whole "laborer, supervisor" thing isn't really relevant. While things like the length of time the estate has been opened, and using money for personal issues/gain ARE relevant issues, the fact YOU think this man doesn't belong on the ROOF isn't. Understand the difference? The court asks itself "How does this behavior affect the equitable distribution of the estate?" A guy on the roof you think shouldn't be there has nothing to do with it--its just snarking about something that doesn't matter (legally). However, when the court asks the same question about other things ( such as money missing, items sold) then there IS cause for concern.

If you go to court harping on a guy on a roof--it will reduce the LEGITIMACY of your OTHER claims which appear to have merit. I know probate is an emotional experience for family members----but focusing on the issues that are legally relevant will support your position---don't detract from it by pointing out people's "station" in life or them traipsing around a roof ( unless they are STEALING the roof or damaging it--thats different). There is a difference between opinion and protocol.

In any regard: Please, if you will, answer the questions above regarding the hearing to have the estate handled. The answers to those questions may better answer your own question as to why L wasnt appointed when and if C was removed as executor ( if she even was removed--was she?)

Lori would have had the property and house sold long before now. It would almost be like an albatros over her head if she had to wait for a year. I understand that there is a lot regarding an estate but he had no debts,etc. Everything should have been done by now and the monies passed on to the heirs. I will let you know what the judge says from after reading the deposition. Thanks for your input, Grace. Carla has no idea of how to just get things done and over with. There is no logical reason for her to have stayed in their dad's house for so long. If it were me, I would want to get the house and property sold and done and over with. Lori is very capable and knows how to handle things like this. Like I said, very time consuming but it would have been done within the year if she was executrix and everything was done on time. But as they say life goes on.

Judy

Judy, it sounds like you folks took the instructions here literally and only asked for court supervision rather than asking for a NEW family executrix. This CAN be attempted again, but the point of having it supervised is that the court will see to it that the division is equitable, regardless of what C has already given away.... but C is going to have to come up with the missing money that should NOT have been doled out. Perhaps some of it or even all of it was legitimate and is the end of his share.

But at this point, the court is telling you that they will see to it that she is going to be accountable for any damage she has done (so it would be wise for you to check out the house by visiting during the remaining time). And pointedly L doesn't have to be the cause of C getting her dressing down. It will be on the court. She really doesn't need to be blamed for what is likely to be a family busting situation. Don't insist that she do it. The court won't hold it up. They just do it legally and equitably. And the court is responsible for demanding that C is responsible for restitution, NOT L. It is better for the family... for years to come... so that C can't blame L for anything... OR YOU.

So don't look on this as being a time burner. There is still plenty of time.

Thanks boykin,

After they get C removed from the estate, they are going to petition to have L be the new exectrix. C has done some right things with her dad except for selling the estate,etc,etc. Like I told Grace, I will let both of you know what happens in the future. Thanks for both of your helpful opinions.

Judy

Grace,

The thing that was needed was to have C being watched and the money watched. Please read the previous post from me. All remains to be seen. Sorry for not answering the other topic that you wanted answered.

Judy