59-1711. Removal and penalties. Whenever a fiduciary is or becomes an incapacitated person or otherwise incapable of performing the duties of his or her trust, he or she may be removed. Whenever a fiduciary fails or refuses to perform any of the duties imposed upon him or her by law or by any lawful order of the court, he or she may be removed and his or her compensation may be reduced or forfeited, in the discretion of the court.
History: L. 1939, ch. 180, § 141; L. 1965, ch. 346, § 19; January 1, 1966.
Source or prior law:
22-323, 22-520, 22-533, 22-903, 22-922, 38-221, 38-222, 39-229, 62-2005.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Annotation No. 3 discussed in 1955-56 survey of law of administration of estates, Richard C. Harris, 5 K.L.R. 143, 151 (1956).
Discussed in nisi prius decision that jurisdiction of probate court depends on notice in a hearing as to the removal of an administratrix, 11 K.L.R. 297, 298 (1962).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Discussed; foreign corporation cannot serve as testamentary trustee of Kansas testator's estate. In re Estate of Lowe, 155 Kan. 679, 688, 127 P.2d 512.
2. Court has jurisdiction and supervision of trust even if will provides otherwise. In re Estate of Porter, 164 Kan. 92, 99, 187 P.2d 520.
3. Court has jurisdiction to remove guardian for ward's best interests. In re Estate of Osborn, 179 Kan. 365, 371, 372, 295 P.2d 615.
4. Cited; case concerning duty of an administrator. In re Estate of Lohse v. Rubow, 207 Kan. 36, 38, 41, 483 P.2d 1048.
5. Applied; trial court did not err in refusing to remove or surcharge trustee. Jennings v. Murdock, 220 Kan. 183, 211, 553 P.2d 846.
6. Compensation of trustee and conduct reducing the same is within sound discretion of trial court. Burch v. Dodge, 4 Kan. App. 2d 503, 509, 608 P.2d 1032.
7. Mentioned; abuse of discretion by trial court in failing to remove guardian; factors to be considered. In re Lake, 7 Kan. App. 2d 586, 588, 644 P.2d 1368 (1982).
8. Cited; circumstances rendering order approving claims voidable due to conservator's substantial conflict of interest (K.S.A. 59-1703), "other interested parties" examined. In re Conservatorship of L.M.S., 12 Kan. App. 2d 725, 727, 755 P.2d 22 (1988).
9. Medical assistance applicant who is beneficiary of discretionary trust not required to take legal action to force trustees to distribute trust. Simpson v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 21 Kan. App. 2d 680, 687, 906 P.2d 174 (1995).
10. Removal of executor held to be antagonistic toward estate's interest not erroneous. In re Estate of Stoskopf, 24 Kan. App. 2d 851, 854, 858, 954 P.2d 712 (1998).
|
|