Surrogate Robert J. Gigante

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Pierce, bankruptcy trustee for Ganey, decedent’s daughter, moved to direct estate administrator Woll to dispose of decedent’s real estate by sale or deed conveyance, revoke Woll’s letters of administration, and compel Woll to account. He claimed Woll committed waste, and self-dealing, among other things, authorizing the court to direct disposition of real property for payment and distribution of respective shares to those entitled. The court opined if it was proper to revoke Woll’s letters without a hearing. Woll’s answer denied committing waste, claiming he was acting in the estate’s best interest, including renting the subject property to use rents to defray costs and pay bills, while securing a fair price for sale. Pierce’s reply pointed to Woll’s purported inconsistencies and unsubstantiated statements, indicating an alleged accrual of fees and penalties relating to the foreclosure against the property as examples of Woll’s waste. The court concluded it was inappropriate to revoke letters of administration without a hearing as there were conflicting factual accounts regarding the care and management of the estate, and Pierce failed to submit sufficient, undisputed proof warranting Woll’s removal. Hence, same was denied, but the remainder of the motion was granted.

Surrogate Robert J. Gigante

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Pierce, bankruptcy trustee for Ganey, decedent’s daughter, moved to direct estate administrator Woll to dispose of decedent’s real estate by sale or deed conveyance, revoke Woll’s letters of administration, and compel Woll to account. He claimed Woll committed waste, and self-dealing, among other things, authorizing the court to direct disposition of real property for payment and distribution of respective shares to those entitled. The court opined if it was proper to revoke Woll’s letters without a hearing. Woll’s answer denied committing waste, claiming he was acting in the estate’s best interest, including renting the subject property to use rents to defray costs and pay bills, while securing a fair price for sale. Pierce’s reply pointed to Woll’s purported inconsistencies and unsubstantiated statements, indicating an alleged accrual of fees and penalties relating to the foreclosure against the property as examples of Woll’s waste. The court concluded it was inappropriate to revoke letters of administration without a hearing as there were conflicting factual accounts regarding the care and management of the estate, and Pierce failed to submit sufficient, undisputed proof warranting Woll’s removal. Hence, same was denied, but the remainder of the motion was granted.