Estate of Sweetland

2001 ME 21, 770 A.2d 1017, 2001 Me. LEXIS 22
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJanuary 30, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2001 ME 21 (Estate of Sweetland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Estate of Sweetland, 2001 ME 21, 770 A.2d 1017, 2001 Me. LEXIS 22 (Me. 2001).

Opinion

RUDMAN, J.

[¶ 1] Irene Mailhiot, personal representative of the Estate of Robert E. Sweet-land, appeals from the judgment entered in the Cumberland County Probate Court {Childs, J.) ordering that she reimburse the Estate of Sweetland in the amount of $40,613.26. She contends that she should be compelled to reimburse the estate only for 10% of the court’s surcharge. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Cumberland County Probate Court.

[1018]*1018I. BACKGROUND

[¶ 2] Robert E. Sweetland of Windham, Maine, died testate on January 24, 1997. Pursuant to his Last Will and Testament, Irene Mailhiot of Hull, Massachusetts, was appointed to serve as the Personal Representative of Sweetland’s Estate.

[¶ 3] Sweetland’s will directed that his residuary estate be divided in the following manner: 40% to the Massachusetts Shri-ners Hospital Burn Institute; 20% to a Massachusetts Masonic Home; 5% to the American Cancer Society in Brunswick, Maine; 15% to the Salvation Army in Portland, Maine; 10% to the Maine State Society for the Protection of Animals (MSSPA), the Appellee herein; and 10% to the Animal Refuge League, in Westbrook, Maine.

[¶ 4] Sweetland’s Estate was valued at $227,085.98 and consisted primarily of a home in Windham, Maine, a car, and numerous bank accounts. In July 1999, Mai-lhiot contacted all six beneficiaries and provided each with a First and Final Accounting, which included Schedule A (Assets and Income Earned) and Schedule B (Liabilities and Expenses Incurred for the period January 24, 1997, up through and including June 30, 1999). Mailhiot also provided each beneficiary with a “Receipt and Release” accompanied by a note stating that, “[u]pon my receipt, of all six (6) Receipt and Release agreements properly executed and notarized, I will forward you a check, payable to your organization, in the amount of your entitlement, ....”1

[¶ 5] MSSPA offered to execute a receipt but refused to sign a release. The Accounting and Inventory provided to MSSPA showed that Mailhiot had charged $94,889.85 in administration fees and expenses to the Estate, leaving $132,196.14 to be distributed to the beneficiaries. Of this $94,889.85, Mailhiot billed the Estate for $36,000 in administrative fees,2 and $14,113.26 for travel related fees.

[¶ 6] Pursuant to 18-A M.R.S.A. § 3-1003, Mailhiot filed a Sworn Statement of Personal Representative Closing Estate. MSSPA, pursuant to 18-A M.R.S.A. §§ 3-719 and 3-721, objected to Mailhiot’s closing statement and petitioned for a judicial review of the reasonableness of Mailhiot’s administration fees and expenses. MSSPA alleged that Mailhiot’s expenses [1019]*1019were excessive pursuant to the standards set forth in 18-A M.R.S.A. §§ 3-7193 and 3-721.4

[¶ 7] A testimonial hearing was held on March 24, 2000.5 The Probate Court found:

[T]he administrative fees charged by Ms. Mailhiot were excessive under the standards of compensation set forth in 18-A M.R.S.A. §§ 3-719 and 3-721. The Court will allow the amount of $10,000.00 for the Personal Representative’s administrative fees. Ms. Mailhiot will reimburse the Estate in the amount of $26,000.00 for administrative fee overcharges. In addition, she will reimburse the Estate in the amount of $3,500.00 for the cost of the legal settlement caused by her misfeasance.
In addition to the administrative fees, Ms. Mailhiot charged the Estate $14,113.26 for food, travel, auto, parking, [and] tolls, including two to three lunches per week at a lavish local restaurant. These charges are unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The Court will allow the amount of $3,000.00 for these expenses. Ms. Mailhiot will reimburse the Estate in the amount of $11,113.26 for Personal Representative expense overcharges.
The Court finds that during the period of her administration, Irene Mailhiot systematically and intentionally abused [1020]*1020her authority by grossly overcharging the Estate for personal gain wherever and whenever she could, and her conduct was a breach of her fiduciary responsibilities as Personal Representative. MSSPA has spent $4,700.00 in attorney’s fees in its challenge to Irene Mailhiot’s proposed closing of the Estate. The Court finds these fees reasonable and orders that Irene Mailhiot be surcharged the amount of $4,700.00 so that the Estate may reimburse MSSPA for their attorney fees.6
The sum which Irene Mailhiot has been ordered to pay to the Estate in reimbursement will be divided amongst the Devisees according to the percentages of the residuary to which they are entitled by the Last Will and Testament of Robert E. Sweetland.

II. DISCUSSION

[¶ 8] Mailhiot contends that the Probate Court exceeded its authority when it ordered her to reimburse the full $40,613.26 to the Estate. Mailhiot does not dispute the court’s finding with respect to the excessive administration fees and expenses. Rather, Mailhiot argues, that, because each of the other five beneficiaries signed the “Receipt and Release,”7 they have released her from liability for her actions as personal representative, including her liability for the full $40,613.26. Accordingly, Mailhiot argues she only has to reimburse the Estate $4,061.33, an amount equal to 10% of $40,613.26, MSSPA’s share in the residuary.

[¶ 9] The Probate Code provides, in pertinent part, that “the reasonableness of the compensation determined by the personal representative for his own services, may be reviewed by the court. Any person who has received excessive compensation from an estate for services rendered may be ordered to make appropriate refunds.” 18-A M.R.S.A. § 3-721 (a) (1998).8 The plain language of the statute vests the Probate Court with the authority to order “appropriate refunds” from any person who has received excessive compensation.

[¶ 10] The reimbursement of overcharged personal representative fees is analogous to a case of improperly charged attorney fees. If attorney fees are improperly charged to the estate, they are returned to the estate because the improper fees constitute a damage or loss to the estate. See Estate of Stowell, 596 A.2d 1022, 1026 (Me.1991). Similarly, Mailhiot’s overcharge resulted in a damage or loss to the Estate, entitling the Estate to a reimbursement.

[¶ 11] In addition, a personal representative is liable to the beneficiaries of an estate for damage or loss to the estate resulting from a breach of their fiduciary [1021]*1021duty. Harrington v. Lord, 1997 ME 201, ¶ 12, 704 A.2d 1211, 1215 (citing 18-A M.R.S.A. § 3-712 (1981)); see also Estate of Stowell, 595 A.2d 1022, 1026 (Me.1991). A personal representative is a fiduciary subject to the same duty of loyalty and liability for breach as the trustee of an express trust. See 18-A M.R.S.A. § 3-712 (1998). The Probate Court found that Mailhiot “systematically and intentionally abused her authority by grossly overcharging the Estate for personal gain wherever and whenever she could,” and that, consequently, she had breached her fiduciary duty.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

York v. Janson
Maine Superior, 2023
Boucher v. Nason
Maine Superior, 2018
Guardianship and Conservatorship of Vincent M. Jones
2017 ME 125 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2001 ME 21, 770 A.2d 1017, 2001 Me. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-sweetland-me-2001.