Probate Expert’s Will Triggers Litigation

Ralph Haines, who died on May 3, 2002, was one of the top probate attorneys in West Virginia.  According to the opinion in Haines v. Kimble, No. 32844 (W. Va. 2006),

Prior to his death, the testator was a practicing member of the West Virginia State Bar and had been for a period of more than sixty years. He was well versed in the law of estates in West Virginia and as a member of the West Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, he wrote the test questions on wills and estates. At the time of his death, the testator had accumulated an estate believed to be worth more than $10 million.

Ralph’s will was very simple — his daughter and only child was the sole beneficiary and his long-time secretary, the executrix.

But, things did not work out very well.  A huge fight broke out between Ralph’s child and secretary resulting in time-consuming and expensive litigation.  Ralph’s daughter claimed that the executrix was concealing property, including in the estate inventory property which Ralph had previously given to his daughter, inflated property values to enhance her commission, and did not properly handle the closing of Ralph’s law practice.

The court explained,

In this case, while there may be facts in dispute as to the specific reasons surrounding the hostile relations between the appellee and the appellant, there is no dispute that such hostile relations in fact do exist and that the parties cannot work together with any sense of civility or common purpose. We believe that such hostile relations, regardless of who is at fault, necessarily have already damaged, and in the future will continue to damage, the estate and the appellant’s interest in it.

Accordingly, the court removed Ralph’s secretary as the executrix.  The court put it this way,

Irrespective of the testator’s initial intent that the appellee act as executrix, it is obvious that the testator did not intend nor contemplate that there would be such aggressive and acrimonious battles between the appellee and the appellant in the administration of his estate. Likewise, we believe that had the testator envisioned the massive amounts of money being spent in legal fees alone, now estimated to approach $1 million, it is more likely than not that he would have handled the matter of his estate in a different manner. It is clear to us that the testator’s primary intention of leaving his entire estate to the appellant as his only child and sole heir must be the overriding factor and primary consideration and consequently requires the removal of the appellee as executrix.

See also Steve Korris, Supreme Court sides with daughter on probate lawyer’s will, W. Va. Rec., March 23, 2006.