NS Supreme Court removes co-personal representative over estate mismanagement

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has removed a co-personal representative of an estate due to allegations of mismanagement and failure to comply with court orders.

In Keating v. Keating, 2024 NSSC 207, the court ordered Rachel Keating's removal as co-personal representative of Nanette Elizabeth Keating's estate following allegations of her failure to fulfill her duties. The decision came after Gary Keating, the co-personal representative and Rachel's brother, filed for her removal due to non-compliance with a previous court order and mismanagement of estate assets.

Nanette Keating passed away on January 6, 2020, leaving behind an estate to be divided equally among her five children. A grant of probate was issued, appointing both Gary and Rachel as co-personal representatives. However, Gary raised concerns about Rachel's handling of the estate, alleging significant misallocation of funds and failure to provide proper accounting.

Gary's allegations included Rachel's failure to use the designated estate bank account, intermingling estate assets with personal accounts, and unauthorized disbursements totalling $60,000 to herself and other beneficiaries. Rachel admitted to some of the claims but contested her removal, asserting she managed the estate in accordance with their mother's wishes and without legal counsel.

The court reviewed the evidence and found Rachel failed to comply with the registrar of probate's order, which required full disclosure of bank statements and collaboration with Gary to file an application to pass the accounts. Rachel had not provided complete bank statements and admitted to using personal accounts for estate transactions. Her inadequate accounting and non-compliance with the order prevented the court from understanding the estate's transactions.

The court emphasized the importance of a personal representative's duty to account, including the necessity of using a designated estate bank account. Rachel's failure to do so complicated the estate's administration and hindered Gary's ability to fulfill his duties. The court found Rachel's actions and lack of proper disclosure justified her removal.

The Supreme Court, citing previous cases, noted that Rachel's inability to handle the estate's affairs and her continued refusal to comply with the court's order demonstrated she was not fit to manage the estate. Consequently, the court ordered Rachel's removal as co-personal representative, leaving Gary to remain the sole representative.