In this estate, one of the heirs - one Rowell - was named Executor in the will, but before the will's probate, "acted as a fiduciary without court appointment," receiving in excess of $100,000 in estate assets herself and variously managing the estate without authorization.
Presumably in part because of Rowell's misdeeds, a neutral administrator was appointed to manage the estate.
In other cases reported in this blog, the result of such activity has been a significant award against the misbehaving fiduciary, including punitive damages and attorney fees. In the present case, however, the probate court didn't go that way. There was apparently at least some controversy about the correctness of Rowell's spending, her attorney stating on the record that "we welcome an accounting." Further, the administrator the court appointed "did not pursue a forensic accounting to determine what Rowell had done with estate funds."
Instead, the administrator (1) took it upon herself to reduce Rowell's share by $61,684 and (2) sought a court approval of a plan of distribution based upon that reduction.
The probate court approved that plan, and all but one of the heirs - Rowell herself - agreed to it as well. On appeal, the Court stated that this sort of thing won't hold up. Rowell's poor decision making may indeed have been cause to reduce her final share, but according to the Court of Appeals, at least some evidence must be shown of why a particular reduction is appropriate.
In response to the administrator's argument on appeal, the Court reasoned that, even though the executor was granted the power of "pursuing claims on behalf of estate, it does not follow that the Administrator could arbitrarily choose an amount by which the value of Rowell's distributive share should be adjusted based upon a possible claim against Rowell by the estate or other beneficiaries."