Appellate Division Upholds Trial Court Finding of Insufficient Evidence to Remove Executor
Chorun v. Chorun, Docket No. A-2704-23 (N.J. Super. App. Div. May 6, 2025)
The estate’s executor (“Philip”) and beneficiary (“Alan”) were the sons of Joseph Chorun (“Decedent”). In December 2020, the Decedent died intestate, and Philip qualified as the estate’s executor. The Decedent left a residence in which the parties’ sister resided.
The Decedent’s will stated that if anyone was residing in his home, they would have to vacate within three months and the home must be immediately listed for sale.
Philip tried to sell the home twice but was unsuccessful because there were remediation issues with the septic system. The brothers then agreed that they were going to sell the property to their sister for a reduced price. Later, Alan changed his mind and refused to sign the sales documents for the home.
Philip moved for power-of-attorney to sign the sale of the documents for Alan. Alan cross-moved to remove Philip as executor and obtain an impartial third-party replacement.
The Chancery Division concluded that Alan did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Philip violated N.J.S.A. § 3B:14-21. The judge denied Alan’s request to remove Philip as executor and explained that there was no evidence of any embezzlement or wrongful acts by the executor. Alan appealed.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Chancery Division’s decision to deny Alan’s request to remove Philip as estate executor. The Court explained that removal of an executor is an extraordinary remedy, which is granted sparingly. An executor of an estate can be removed if he or she “embezzles, wastes or misapplies any part of the estate… or abuses the trust and confidence reposed in [him or her]”. N.J.S.A. § 3B:14-21 (c). To remove an executor, an applicant must produce competent evidence showing misconduct or other potential harm to the estate.
The Appellate Division blocked Alan’s attempt to remove Philip as executor because there was no proof that Philip breached his fiduciary duty. Philip did not embezzle, waste, or misapply the Decedent’s estate. Philip attempted to sell the Decedent’s property as specified in his will and was required to take necessary and responsible actions when Alan refused to sign the documents. Philip’s deviation did not represent any breach of his fiduciary obligations owed to the Decedent’s estate.
Philip remained executor of the Decedent’s estate. Alan had additional contentions, which the Court did not directly address because they were without merit to warrant a written opinion.