Removal of a Personal Representative

In Maryland, a personal representative shall be removed from office upon a finding by the court that he:

 (1) Misrepresented material facts in the proceedings leading to his appointment;

(2) Willfully disregarded an order of the court;

(3) Is unable or incapable, with or without his own fault, to discharge his duties and powers effectively;

(4) Has mismanaged property;

(5) Has failed to maintain on file with the register a currently effective designation of an appropriate local agent for service of process; or

(6) Has failed, without reasonable excuse, to perform a material duty pertaining to the office.

Even if there exists cause for removal for failure to perform a material duty pertaining to the office, the court may continue the personal representative in office if it finds that continuance would be in the best interests of the estate and would not adversely affect the rights of interested persons or creditors.

A hearing shall be conducted by the court prior to the removal of a personal representative. The hearing may be held on the motion of the court, on motion of the register, or on written petition of an interested person. Notice of the hearing shall be given by the register to all interested persons. After notice has been given to the personal representative, he may exercise only the powers of a special administrator as permitted by § 6-403 of the Estates and Trusts Article.

Concurrently with the removal of a personal representative, the court shall appoint a successor personal representative or a special administrator.

A personal representative who is removed from office shall account for and immediately deliver the property belonging to the estate to his successor or special administrator.



Plan Ahead:  Wills & Living Wills

Just a friendly reminder, if you do not have a Last Will & Testament and a Living Will, you should. And so should your parents. Why let the statutes decide how your estate is distributed without a Will and what should happen without a Living Will in the event you cannot make a decision. These legal documents are powerful. You should consult a lawyer. #adamsampsonlaw

Puerto Rico Supreme Court: Former Exec Cannot Sue Individual Board Members for Breach of Employment Contract

The National Law Forum

A former employee cannot sue individual members of a corporation’s board of directors for breach of an employment contract and negligence in execution of fiduciary duties, where: 1) the individual board members are not parties to the employment contract; and 2) the employee and his relatives are not shareholders with standing to sue board members for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has held. Randolfo Rivera San Feliz et al v. Junta de Directores de Firstbank Corporate et al., 2015 TSPR 61, 196 DPR ___ (2015).

Plaintiff Randolfo Rivera was a former executive of a banking entity in Puerto Rico. The terms of his employment were established in a contract with the bank. The contract provided that any decision regarding the contract, including termination of employment, had to be approved by at least two-thirds of all the members of the bank’s board of directors…

View original post 457 more words

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Rules That Sexual Orientation Discrimination Violates Title VII Of The 1964 Civil Rights Act

The National Law Forum

In a potentially groundbreaking decision that increases legal protections throughout the U.S. for lesbian, gay and bisexual employees, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled on June 15, 2015, that existing civil rights law bars sexual orientation-based employment discrimination.  The EEOC addressed the question of whether the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“The Civil Rights Act”) bars anti-LGB discrimination in a charge brought by a Florida employee.

EEOC Employment discrimination LGB discrimination sexual orientation

The ruling was issued without objection from any members of the five-person commission, and while it technically only applies directly to federal employees’ claims, the EEOC also applies such rulings across the nation when it investigates claims of discrimination in private employment.  Although only the Supreme Court can issue a final, definitive ruling on the interpretation of The Civil Rights Act, EEOC decisions are given significant deference by federal courts.

Although the EEOC had…

View original post 156 more words

Can the Police Search Your Cell Phone When They Arrest You?


Can the Police Search Your Cell Phone When They Arrest You by Saul Bienenfeld

If someone is arrested, and he or she is carrying a cell phone at the time, can the police look through the phone to search for additional evidence?

The Supreme Court decided in 2 recent cases that the answer is “no.” In both Riley v. California and U.S. v. Wurie, the Court ruled that police must first obtain a valid warrant to search the phone. This means they have to convince a judge of the likelihood of finding further evidence of criminal behavior upon accessing the device.

View original post 431 more words

The Ongoing Debate About Adequate Consideration in Non-Competition and Other Restrictive Covenants

Labor and Employment Legal News - SmithAmundsen

Contributed by Carlos Arévalo

In late June, the appellate court for the first district reiterated that employment lasting less than two years is inadequate consideration to support enforcement of a post-employment restrictive covenant. In McInnis v. OAG Motorcycle Ventures, a motorcycle salesman filed a lawsuit seeking to have his non-competition agreement declared invalid because he resigned 18 months after signing the agreement. The employer counterclaimed seeking an injunction to enforce the restrictive covenant. The salesman won.Featured image

The court came to this conclusion after examining the 2013 first district case, Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc. That case has been criticized because of its emphasis on the duration of employment after the execution of the agreement, as opposed to reviewing the totality of the circumstances under the Illinois Supreme Court standard. The case involved an employee who was laid off when his employer was purchased by another company. The…

View original post 339 more words

In Maryland, is it possible to challenge or change the terms of a Will or Codicil after someone’s death?

An interested person may file caveat proceedings to challenge a particular Will or Codicil on various grounds, including lack of testamentary capacity at the time the document was executed, undue influence or fraud. There are strict time limits which apply to filing such proceedings and formal procedures must be followed. It is generally advisable to obtain legal counsel for such matters.

Protecting Digital Assets: 6 Steps to Take on Death or Incapacity


ThinkstockPhotos-174474186It used to be enough for a fiduciary and her attorney to simply search through a decedent’s or incapacitated person’s papers in his or her workplace and at home, watch the mailbox for a 90 day cycle, and review tax returns and account statements. Things are more complicated now and a fiduciary must take several more immediate steps with regard to digital assets.

View original post 436 more words

DUI/DWI Laws In Maryland

Have you been charged with a drinking and driving offense in Maryland? The People’s Law Library of Maryland provides a good overview of Maryland’s DUI/DWI laws, the resulting administrative and criminal court proceedings, and applicable penalties. A lawyer may be very helpful in explaining the above and providing representation at an administrative hearing and in court proceedings.