When someone names a family member as executor in their will, they place enormous trust in that person to handle their affairs after death. As part of their estate plan, that same family member often serves as attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney during the person’s lifetime. The attorney-in-fact manages finances, pays bills, and makes decisions on behalf of someone who can no longer handle these matters themselves.
But what happens when an attorney-in-fact abuses that position of trust? Suppose the attorney-in-fact uses the principal’s money for personal expenses, fails to pay nursing home bills, or refuses to provide accounting records. When the principal dies and the probate court has to decide whether to appoint that person as executor, can the court consider the past misconduct? More specifically, does a breach of fiduciary duty as attorney-in-fact make someone “unsuitable” to serve as executor under Texas law?
In re Estate of Boren, 268 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) provides an opportunity to consider this issue.
Facts & Procedural History
Sarah died in 2005. Her will named her nephew Richard as her first choice to serve as independent executor of her estate. The will named Richard’s mother Jeanetta as the alternative executor. The will also devised Sarah’s estate in equal shares to Richard and Jeanetta as sole beneficiaries if Sarah’s husband Charles did not survive her.
Richard had served as attorney-in-fact for both Sarah and Charles under durable powers of attorney. Neither Sarah nor Charles had children. Charles was later determined to be incapacitated. A guardian of his estate was appointed. The issuance of letters of guardianship rendered the durable power of attorney given by Charles no longer effective.
Charles died intestate in December 2004. Sarah died in January 2005. On August 29, 2006, Richard filed an application for probate of Sarah’s will. He also requested his appointment as independent executor. Two separate contests were filed—one by Beverly (Charles’s niece and former guardian) and another by Marcella (Sarah’s sister).
After a hearing, the trial court rejected Beverly’s contest because she lacked standing. The court found that Marcella had standing to challenge Richard’s application. The trial court entered an order denying Richard’s application for probate of the will and his appointment as independent executor. The court made findings that Richard was an unsuitable person to act as executor because of demonstrated violations of his fiduciary duties to Charles and Sarah. The court found it would be improper to name him because of discord and animosity between him and other relatives of Sarah.
The trial court heard substantial evidence regarding Richard’s conduct as attorney-in-fact. Dee (Charles’s brother) testified that Richard had told him it was Richard’s intention while attorney-in-fact for Charles and Sarah to transfer all of their property into Richard’s name. When Dee protested this, Richard responded that there was nothing Dee could do to prevent it. Dee testified that on another occasion, Charles had been upset because he had signed papers at Richard’s request but did not know what the documents were. The papers turned out to be a collateral pledge of Charles’s $12,000 certificate of deposit to guarantee a loan for Richard’s daughter to purchase a house.
Dee discovered that Richard was intending to sell a tract of 127 acres to Charles for $65,000. Dee protested that Charles neither needed the property nor possessed the ability to even know how to locate it. Richard responded that if Charles did not buy the land, Richard would lose it through foreclosure. Richard continued the personal use of the tract after the sale. The Borens subsequently deeded Richard forty acres of it as a gift.
Randy (Charles’s nephew and one-time guardian) testified that Richard had confiscated Charles’s tools and equipment for his own use. While Randy was Charles’s guardian, Richard refused to provide records and receipts of his activities as attorney-in-fact for Charles.
Beverly testified about what she discovered when she assumed the guardianship of Charles. She found that Richard had not paid the fees for Charles’s nursing home care for some three months. The account was approximately $9,000 in arrears. Beverly discovered that during the period from January 3, 2002 through December 31, 2004, there had been automatic teller machine withdrawals from Charles’s and Sarah’s accounts totaling $5,271.75. Neither Charles nor Sarah knew how to use an automatic teller machine.
Beverly found that Richard had written checks totaling $1,890.22 for fuel and “blank” checks for $38,015.21 in addition to cash withdrawals amounting to $19,115.94. Although Charles and Sarah owned no livestock, there was $5,730 spent on cattle and $2,734.07 on tractor repairs. Charles and Sarah had no tractor. The implication was that Richard had both cattle and a tractor and that he had converted these funds to his own use. Although Charles and Sarah had no outstanding notes, Richard wrote checks aggregating $5,521.71 with the notation that they were for note payments. Richard appealed.
What Does the Texas Estates Code Say About Unsuitable Executors?
The Texas Estates Code, which was previously the Probate Code, identifies persons who are disqualified to serve as executor or administrator of an estate. The statute contains a catch-all provision stating that a person is disqualified to serve if the applicant for letters is “[a] person whom the court finds unsuitable.” The term “unsuitable” is not defined in the statute.
The lack of a definition of “unsuitable” in the Estates Code leaves the implication that the trial court has discretion in making that determination. The cases considering the provision do not establish a bright line test to be applied in making that determination. Each case requires examination of the specific facts and circumstances presented.
The statute gives trial courts broad authority to determine who should serve as executor. This makes sense because the executor holds a position of significant responsibility and trust. The executor must collect estate assets, pay debts and taxes, and distribute property to beneficiaries. The executor owes fiduciary duties to the estate and its beneficiaries. Someone who has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to fulfill fiduciary obligations in the past may be unsuitable for this role.
Trial courts must exercise their discretion based on the evidence presented. The court can consider the applicant’s character, integrity, financial responsibility, and past conduct. The court can examine whether the applicant has any conflicts of interest with beneficiaries. The court can evaluate whether appointing the applicant would lead to discord and litigation that would harm the estate.
What Standard of Review Applies to Unsuitability Determinations?
A court’s ruling on a probate application is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. The trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to any guiding rules or principles. The mere fact a trial judge may decide a matter within his discretionary authority in a different manner than an appellate judge in a similar circumstance does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion has occurred.
When the trial court’s ruling on the merits is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, the normal sufficiency of the evidence review is part of the abuse of discretion review and not an independent ground for reversal. Under an abuse of discretion standard of review, the appellate court must make an independent inquiry of the entire record to determine if the trial court abused its discretion. The court is not limited to reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact made.
This standard gives considerable deference to the trial court’s determination. The trial court hears the witnesses testify. The trial court observes their demeanor and assesses their credibility. The trial court is in the best position to evaluate conflicting evidence and make factual findings. An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court unless the trial court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably.
What Are the Fiduciary Duties of an Attorney-in-Fact?
An attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney owes fiduciary duties to the principal. These duties include the duty of loyalty, the duty to act in good faith, and the duty to exercise reasonable care. The attorney-in-fact must act solely in the principal’s best interest and must not use the position for personal benefit.
An attorney-in-fact has a duty to keep and maintain records of its activities and to account for those activities. This recordkeeping requirement serves important purposes. It allows the principal (or the principal’s guardian or family members) to monitor the attorney-in-fact’s conduct. It provides documentation of how the principal’s funds were spent. It creates a record that can be examined if questions arise about the attorney-in-fact’s management.
The attorney-in-fact must segregate the principal’s funds from the attorney-in-fact’s own funds. The attorney-in-fact cannot commingle personal money with the principal’s money. The attorney-in-fact cannot use the principal’s funds to pay the attorney-in-fact’s personal expenses unless the power of attorney specifically authorizes compensation or reimbursement.
The attorney-in-fact must use the principal’s assets only for the principal’s benefit. This means paying the principal’s bills, maintaining the principal’s property, and providing for the principal’s needs. It does not mean using the principal’s money to buy cattle for the attorney-in-fact’s farm, to repair the attorney-in-fact’s tractor, or to make payments on the attorney-in-fact’s loans.
When an attorney-in-fact breaches these duties, it demonstrates a fundamental disregard for fiduciary obligations. The breach shows that the person cannot be trusted to manage someone else’s property. It reveals a willingness to put personal interests ahead of the interests of the person they are supposed to serve.
How Did the Court Apply the Unsuitability Standard to Richard’s Conduct?
The court of appeals examined the record to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding Richard unsuitable to serve as executor. The court considered all of the evidence regarding Richard’s conduct as attorney-in-fact for Charles and Sarah.
The evidence showed a pattern of self-dealing and misappropriation. Richard used Charles’s and Sarah’s money to pay for his own expenses. He bought cattle and repaired his tractor using their funds. He made ATM withdrawals even though neither Charles nor Sarah could use an ATM. He wrote checks for fuel, made cash withdrawals, and paid notes that belonged to him rather than to Charles and Sarah.
Richard failed to fulfill his basic obligations as attorney-in-fact. He did not pay Charles’s nursing home bills for three months, allowing the account to fall $9,000 in arrears. This failure put Charles at risk of losing his care. It showed that Richard was not using the funds available to him to meet Charles’s actual needs.
Richard refused to provide records and accounting when requested by Randy during Randy’s time as Charles’s guardian. This refusal violated the attorney-in-fact’s duty to maintain records and account for activities. It prevented oversight of Richard’s management. It suggested Richard had something to hide.
Richard engaged in transactions that benefited himself at Charles’s expense. He arranged for Charles to pledge his certificate of deposit as collateral for a loan to Richard’s daughter. He sold land to Charles that Richard was about to lose to foreclosure. Charles did not need the land and could not even locate it. The transaction saved Richard from financial loss while burdening Charles with property he did not want or need.
Richard told Dee that he intended to transfer all of Charles’s and Sarah’s property into his own name. When Dee objected, Richard said there was nothing Dee could do to stop him. This statement revealed Richard’s belief that his position as attorney-in-fact gave him unlimited power over the property. It showed he viewed the property as his own rather than as belonging to Charles and Sarah.
Did the Evidence Support Finding Richard Unsuitable?
The court of appeals concluded that there was evidence for the trial court to find Richard unsuitable to be named as executor. The court found that Richard had breached his fiduciary duty in his use of power of attorney for Charles. The finding that Richard was unsuitable to serve as independent executor was no abuse of discretion.
The evidence of Richard’s misconduct as attorney-in-fact was directly relevant to his suitability to serve as executor. Both positions involve fiduciary duties. Both require managing someone else’s property and money. Both demand loyalty, honesty, and careful recordkeeping. Both create opportunities for self-dealing and misappropriation if the person serving lacks integrity.
Richard’s past conduct as attorney-in-fact provided strong evidence that he would not faithfully discharge the duties of executor. He had already demonstrated that when given control over Charles’s and Sarah’s property, he used it for his own benefit. He had already shown that he would not maintain proper records or provide accountings. He had already revealed that he would not pay legitimate expenses when doing so would reduce the funds available for his personal use.
The trial court reasonably concluded that someone who had mismanaged Charles’s and Sarah’s affairs during their lives should not be entrusted with managing Sarah’s estate after her death. The trial court reasonably determined that appointing Richard would not serve the interests of the estate or its beneficiaries. The trial court acted within its discretion in finding Richard unsuitable.
The Takeaway
Texas probate courts have discretion to find an applicant unsuitable to serve as executor even when the will names that person. Evidence of breach of fiduciary duty in a prior position of trust provides a sound basis for an unsuitability finding. When someone serving as attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney misappropriates funds, fails to maintain records, refuses to provide accountings, and engages in self-dealing transactions, that conduct demonstrates unsuitability to serve as executor. The Boren case makes clear that past misconduct as a fiduciary is highly relevant to determining whether someone should be appointed executor. Trial courts can and should consider such evidence when deciding whether to grant letters testamentary to the person named in the will. Appellate courts will uphold unsuitability findings based on evidence of fiduciary breach unless the trial court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably.
Do you need help with a probate matter in Austin or the surrounding area? We are Austin probate attorneys. We help clients navigate the probate process. Call today for a free confidential consultation, 512-273-7444.
Our Austin Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with probate administrations and litigation. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process. We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer
The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
