Sakowski served as the temporary personal representative of Lanier's estate during which time he was involved in the estate's medical malpractice claim against William Beaumont Hospital. The case mediated for $25,000 which Sakowski accepted but the hospital rejected the award. The hospital responded with an offer of $3000. The attorney handling the malpractice claim never told Sakowski about the offer. The estate didn't respond to the offer which according to Michigan law acted as a rejection of the offer. At trial, the jury found for the hospital and the hospital's motion for costs and fees settled for $10,636.70.

Szymanksi, the estate's successor personal representative asked the probate court to surcharge Sakowski for his failure to notify the heirs about the $3000 offer. The court ordered Sakowski to reimburse for the $10,636.70 expended in costs and fees.

On appeal, Sakowski contended that the probate court erred in assessing the surcharge against him. The appellate court concluded that the probate court abused its discretion in imposing the surcharge stating that "[a]n independent personal representative shall not be surcharged for any good faith act of administration or distribution if the act in question was authorized at the time."

The court stated that at no time was Sakowski "derelict in attending to his responsibilities" with regard to the malpractice action and could not find that Sakowski violated any of his duties to the estate.

As for Sakowski's failure to notify the heirs about the $3,000 offer, the appellate court stated "[R]espondent can hardly be blamed for failing to inform others of facts of which he was not aware. In any case, the probate court erred in concluding that respondent had a duty to consult Lanier's heirs with regard to the offer of judgment. As an independent personal representative, respondent had the authority to make decisions regarding settlement of decedent's claims and was not obligated to obtain the consent of the heirs or any other interested persons."

As long as the personal representative acts reasonably and in good faith, there is no personal liability for decreases in an estate's value or loss of an asset. It is only when there is a breach of fiduciary duty, such as negligence, delay, or self-dealing, that a personal representative will be held personally liable and accountable to the beneficiaries of the estate.

a. What are the relevant facts of the case?

b. What was the issue before the Court and what did the Court decide?

c. Do you think the decision was fair and just? Why or why not?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

a Relevant facts of the case Sakowski served as the temporary personal representative of Laniers estate The estate had a medical malpractice claim aga... View the full answer