IN RE THE ESTATE OF MATTIE LOCKWOOD, DECEASED. OZELLA MCMAHON, AS GUARDIAN FOR HENRY ROSEMOND JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
I. W. WILLIAMS, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MATTIE LOCKWOOD, DECEASED
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's discharge of the estate's personal representative regarding a $1,000 accounting discrepancy, requiring the personal representative to pay the missing amount plus 8% interest to the appellant.
A personal representative who loses $1,000 from estate accounts must pay that amount plus 8% interest to the beneficiary despite being otherwise discharged from liability.
[1] A personal representative who loses estate funds remains liable to beneficiaries for the lost amount plus interest despite an order discharging the representative from fu…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMattie Lockwood's estate was administered by I. W. Williams. A $1,000 discrepancy appeared in the personal representative's accountings, which was con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interest On Award cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
The appellant appeals a final order of the trial court discharging the personal representative of the Estate of Mattie Lockwood. The appellant raises two points on appeal, one of which contains merit. The appellant alleges that there was a $1,000 discrepancy in the accountings of the personal representative. This was confirmed by the record on appeal and this court relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for determination as to such discrepancy.
The trial court has now entered its order finding that the $1,000 was “lost from the account of the personal representative.” It further ordered that “[njotwithstanding the ‘loss’ of the money, . . . ” the appellant was entitled to the receipt of said $1,000 as of November 7, 1978, the date of the order of distribution. It further ordered that the appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% from and after that date.
We approve the trial court’s findings and upon remand the trial court shall enter a judgment in favor of the appellant in accordance with its findings,
The order appealed discharging and re-]jev¡ng the personal representative and his surety from any further responsibility or liability to the estate or the heir is reversed as to the above discussed $1,000 and affirmed as to the real property.
SCHEB, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.