IMO the Estate of Phillip A. Kennedy, Sr.

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER )
OF THE ESTATE OF ) ROW Folio No. 162046 DM-MLM
PHILLIP A KENNEDY, SR. )

Final Report: December 30, 2024
Date September 10, 2024

FINAL POST-TRIAL REPORT

Bayard J. Snyder, Esquire, SNYDER & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Wilmington, DE;
Attorney for Petitioners.

Patricia A. Still, Bridgeville, DE; Pro se Respondent.

MITCHELL, M.
This is my ruling following the July 16, 2024, evidentiary hearing regarding

the Estate of Phillip Kennedy Sr. Brothers, Peter Kennedy & Phillip A. Kennedy Jr.

take exceptions to the second and final accounting submitted by their sister, Patricia

A. Still, as the executrix of the estate. They claim Patricia: 1) improperly claimed

commissions for Estate administration; 2) improperly allocated attorney fees to a

beneficiary; and 3) improperly distributed estate funds. For the reasons stated herein,

I find her $2,000.00 commission to be proper, but I do find that she improperly

allocated attorney fees and fees charged by the Register of Wills. I find that the

attorney fees and Register of Wills fees were attributable to the estate and each

beneficiary should have shared in them equally. As such, I am surcharging the

Executrix in the amount of $7,243.53 to correct her actions. This is my final report.

I. BACKGROUND 1

The parties, Peter Kennedy and Phillip A. Kennedy Jr. (together, the

“Petitioners”) and Patricia Still (the “Respondent”), are siblings and the children of

Phillip A. Kennedy Sr. (herein after, the “Decedent”). 2 Phillip Kennedy Sr. passed

away on October 18, 2014. 3 Prior to his passing, the Decedent lived in a home

1
The facts in this report reflect my findings based on the record developed at trial on July
16, 2024. I grant the evidence the weight and credibility I find it deserves. Citations to the
record are in the form of Docket Item (“D. I.”) and identified by their entry number.
Citations to the trial transcript are in the form of “Tr. __.”.
2
D. I. 3.
3
D. I. 2.
located at 2227 Centerville Road, Wilmington, DE, 19808 (hereinafter, “the

Home”).4 He is survived by eight children, Phillip A. Kennedy Jr., Paula M. Wilson,

Patricia A. Still, Pamela J. Giles, Patrick J. Kennedy, Paul J. Kennedy, Phyllis A.

Cuomo, and Peter J. Kennedy.5 The Decedent executed a Last Will and Testament

(“the Will”) dated August 13, 2014, and named his daughter, the Respondent, the

executrix of his Estate. 6

The Will directs the execution of the Decedent’s estate. 7 Relevant here are

Articles 5 and 6 of the Will. Article 5 of the Will directs the executrix to sell all real,

personal, or mixed property for such amounts as the executrix deems best. 8 Article

6 of the Will devises and bequeaths the remainder of the Decedent’s property in

equal shares to his eight children.9

The Register of Wills (“ROW”) granted letters testamentary to the

Respondent on October 30, 2015.10 In accordance with the letters, an initial

inventory was due on or before January 30, 2016, and an initial accounting was due

4
D. I. 9.
5
D. I. 3.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
D. I. 4.

2
on or before October 30, 2016. 11 Just before the deadline, on January 26, 2016, the

ROW accepted the Respondent’s 60-day extension request to file the initial

inventory. 12 Nonetheless, the Respondent failed to file the inventory by the new

March 31, 2016, deadline. 13 The Respondent also failed to file the first accounting

by the October 30th deadline.14 On November 2, 2016, the ROW notified the

Respondent of the overdue inventory and that a summons may be issued if the

Respondent did not file the inventory by December 2, 2016.15 The Respondent

subsequently filed the initial inventory on December 1, 2016. 16 The initial inventory

valued the Estate at $202,912.09.17 The Home was valued at $192,000.18 The

Decedent’s PNC checking account contained $8,658.49 and there were four

11
Id.
12
D. I. 7.
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
Id.
16
D. I. 8.
17
Id.
18
D. I. 11.

3
insurance policies with a combined cash value of $1,253.60.19 The Decedent also

owned furniture valued at $1,000.20

On March 20, 2017, the Respondent filed the first accounting with the ROW.21

However, the first accounting was not final because the Respondent had not yet sold

the Home. 22 On August 22, 2017, the Respondent signed an agreement with an

auctioneer to auction the Home. 23 On the same day, the attorney for the Estate

claimed unpaid legal fees in connection with the administration of the Estate.24 Eight

days later, the attorney for the Estate withdrew.25 Within a few weeks, the disputes

over the administration of the estate between the parties increased. 26

The Petitioners initially contacted the estate attorney’s office on or around

March 2, 2017 to discuss problems with the estate.27 On September 7th and 11th,

19
D. I. 8 (Schedule C); Respondent’s Post-Hearing Submission, pgs. 21-22 and 38 (Of the
$1,253.60, Phyllis Garrett was the beneficiary of $255.87, Pamela Giles was the
beneficiary of $346.83, Paul Kennedy was the beneficiary of $344.78, and Peter Kennedy
was the beneficiary of $306.12).
20
D. I. 11.
21
Id.
22
Id.
23
D. I. 15.
24
D. I. 12.
25
D. I. 13; Tr. 10:12–15 (At trial, Petitioner testified that she fired the attorney to limit the
legal fees).
26
D. I. 14.
27
Petitioner’s Exhibit E. Respondent’s Post-Hearing submission, pgs. 32-33. (Reference to
communications with the attorney for the estate include communications with the
attorney’s staff. Respondent asserts Petitioner Peter Kennedy mainly communicated with
4
Peter Kennedy contacted the ROW to express concern over the future sale of the

Home and his intent to file a Rule to Show Cause. 28 On September 11, 2017, the

Estate’s prior attorney claimed additional unpaid legal fees related to the

administration of the Estate. 29

On October 30, 2017, the deadline to file the second accounting for the Estate

lapsed.30 The ROW took no immediate action regarding the filing of the second

accounting because a signed agreement to auction the Home was underway, and no

proceeds from the sale could be reported.31 On March 21, 2018, the Home was sold

at auction for $230,000.32 At this time, the Respondent had all the necessary

information to file the second and final accounting. 33 However, she did not file the

accounting because she was disputing the prior estate attorney’s creditor claims for

attorney fees. 34

the paralegal at the attorney’s office, who was a personal friend. See Respondent’s Post-
Hearing submission, pgs. 2-3.).
28
Id.
29
D. I. 16.
30
D. I. 18.
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id.
34
D. I. 19; Jan. Tr. 6:15–17 (Citations in the form Jan. Tr. – refer to the transcript for the
January 24, 2019 hearing.); Tr. 11:6-9.

5
In a letter received by the ROW on May 21, 2018, the Petitioners claimed that

the Respondent was not acting in the best interests of the Estate. 35 In its December

21, 2018 response, the ROW outlined the remaining steps to close the Estate.36 The

ROW gave the Respondent until January 4, 2019 to resolve the disputed creditor

claims.37 When the Respondent did not have this resolved by the deadline imposed

by the ROW, the ROW issued a summons for a Rule to Show Cause Hearing to be

held on for January 24, 2019.38

In response to the Rule to Show Cause hearing being scheduled, on January

17, 2019, the Respondent submitted an incomplete second accounting that failed to

include the net proceeds from the sale of the Home and address the creditor’s claims

filed against the Estate. 39 Because the submission was incomplete, (then) Master

Griffin moved forward with the previously scheduled Rule to Show Cause hearing

on January 24, 2019. 40

35
D. I. 17.
36
Id.
37
D. I. 19.
38
D. I. 20.
39
D. I. 21.
40
D. I. 27.

6
At the hearing, Master Griffin ordered the Respondent to file a complete

second and final accounting and close the Estate. 41 Master Griffin specifically

advised the Respondent to “make a decision about what [she] want[ed] to do with

the [attorney fees] claim.”42 She also advised that the beneficiaries may file

exceptions to the accounting if they disagreed with her decisions. 43 The Respondent

was assessed a $25.00 fee for the Rule to Show Cause hearing. 44

The Respondent filed the second and final accounting and closed the Estate

on February 8, 2019. 45 The estate was assessed a $200.00 late fee for the delay.46

The Petitioners filed these exceptions on March 12, 2019. 47

On March 29, 2019, the Estate’s prior attorney removed her creditor claim

against the Estate after the Respondent paid all past-due legal invoices. 48 On April

10, 2019, the Respondent submitted a letter co-signed by her siblings: Paul J.

Kennedy, Phyllis A. Cuomo, Paula M. Wilson, Pamela J. Giles, and Patrick J.

41
Jan. Tr. 21:7–8.
42
Jan. Tr. 9:16–17.
43
Jan. Tr. 10:1–2.
44
Tr. 12:21-23; D. I. 26, pg. 4.
45
D. I. 26.
46
Tr. 12:23-24; D. I. 26, pg. 4.
47
D. I. 41.
48
D. I. 29.

7
Kennedy. 49 The letter stated several key details defending her administration of the

Estate. 50 First, the Respondent insisted it was a mutual agreement among her family

members to allow her sister, Pamela Giles, to live in the Home during renovations.

Next, the Respondent claimed that she “willingly gave up the insurance money”

despite being the sole beneficiary.51 She claimed to have split the insurance money

to be “fair” and “in order for all of the siblings to benefit.” 52 Lastly, the Respondent

claimed to have used her own money to pay all the Home’s expenses and some

unforeseen Estate expenses.53

In response to that letter, the Petitioners requested copies of all statements,

policies, records, bills, real estate documents, and receipts for all expenses related to

the Estate from the Respondent.54 On April 25, 2019, the Respondent filed her

49
D. I. 31.
50
Id.
51
Id.; Tr. 8:14-17.
52
Tr. 17:11–14; D. I. 31; to date, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence showing
that she was the sole beneficiary to any insurance policy. It is also unclear to the Court
how much money she relinquished to the siblings from the alleged policy. The Court is
aware that the Executrix had retained counsel for much of the administration of the estate
and assumes she was properly counseled regarding her decisions with the policy; as such,
this decision does not purport to reflect any declarations regarding this alleged transfer.
Relatedly, correspondence from the estate’s prior counsel shows the beneficiaries of the
four insurance policies valued at $1,253.60 were Phyllis Garrett, Pamela Giles, Paul
Kennedy, and Peter Kennedy. If there was an additional policy where the Respondent was
the sole beneficiary, that information was not provided to the Court. See Respondent’s Post-
Hearing Submission, pg. 28.
53
D. I. 31.
54
D. I. 30.

8
response to the exceptions, indicating that she believed she was entitled to her

commission because of her time spent administering the Estate.55

On May 9, 2019, Respondent distributed money to the beneficiaries in varying

amounts. 56 Petitioner Phillip Kennedy Jr. received $23,895.75, while Petitioner

Peter Kennedy received $14,138.49.57 The other siblings/beneficiaries received the

following: Paula M. Wilson received $23,907.18; Pamela J. Giles received

$11,543.35; Patrick J. Kennedy received $23,907.18; Paul J. Kennedy received

$23,562.40; Phyllis A. Cuomo received $23,651.31; and Patricia A. Still gave

herself $48,019.02.58

This case was reassigned to me and on December 11, 2023, I sent a letter to

counsel requesting a status report. 59 On December 21, 2023, the Petitioners

requested a hearing on the exceptions. 60 On March 5, 2024, I scheduled an

55
D. I. 41.
56
Tr. 6:17-7:20. (Per the second and final accounting, the Estate balance to be distributed
evenly among the beneficiaries was $180,529.84. If this balance were distributed as eight
equal shares, each beneficiary would have received $22,566.23).
57
Id; Petitioner’s Exhibit D.
58
Tr. at 4:17–6:2; Respondent’s Post-Hearing Submission, pgs. 21-22. Although Pamela
Giles’ distribution was reduced, this Reduction is not being contested so it is not addressed
here. Furthermore, Respondent testified that Ms. Giles’ distribution was reduced because
the Respondent provided her advancements, and they were related to bills during Ms.
Giles’ stay in the Decedent’s home. Tr. 32:15–22.
59
D. I. 50 (no reassignment letter on the docket).
60
D. I. 51.

9
evidentiary hearing on the exceptions for June 12, 2024.61 That hearing was canceled

due to insufficient notice to the Respondent. 62 Following proper notice, I heard the

exceptions on July 16, 2024. 63 At the conclusion of the Hearing, the parties agreed

to provide post-hearing submissions within two weeks of receiving the hearing

transcript.64 Post-hearing submissions were completed on September 10, 2024; 65

II. ANALYSIS

Petitioners assert that the Executrix of the Estate has: 1) improperly claimed

commissions for Estate administration; 2) improperly allocated attorney fees; and 3)

failed to make distributions in accordance with the terms of the Will. 66

Under Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 184, a beneficiary of an estate may

dispute an inventory or accounting filed under the estate with the ROW by filing

exceptions before this Court in accordance with the rule. 67 Under Court of Chancery

61
D. I. 53.
62
D. I. 58.
63
D. I. 62.
64
See D.I. 62.
65
See D.I. 64-65. The post-hearing submissions were to be provided within two weeks of
the parties receiving the official transcript. Although the Respondent’s submission was
provided outside of the two-week deadline, in the spirit of leniency towards pro se parties,
I have reviewed and considered her submission with this final report.
66
D. I. 41.
67
Ct. Ch. R. 184.

10
Rule 198, the burden of proof rests with the executrix to prove that she properly

prepared and filed the inventory and accounting.68

A. The Respondent’s commission amount is reasonable.

The Petitioners allege that the Respondent should not be paid a commission

for her administration of the Estate. 69 The Respondent claims her commission is fair

considering the time and effort she spent administering the Estate. 70 Under Court of

Chancery Rule 192, an executrix can receive commissions in a reasonable amount

for services related to the administration of the Estate.71 A commission for the

administration of an estate “represents compensation to the personal representative

for his own services in collecting the assets, checking into and paying bills, and

performing the various duties which may be necessary, and his trouble and incidental

expenses incurred thereby.”72 Under Rule 192(b), the Court must evaluate time

spent administering the estate, risks and responsibilities involved, the difficulty of

questions regarding the estate, the executrix’s skill and experience, language from

the will regarding commissions, similar rates for services performed, the value or

character of the assets involved, any loss of business from accepting the

68
Ct. Ch. R. 198.
69
D. I. 28.
70
Id.
71
Ct. Ch. R. 192.
72
In re Whiteside’s Est., 258 A.2d 279, 282 (Del. 1969).

11
administration, and the benefits obtained by the executrix for the administration.73

Additionally, under 12 Del. C. § 2305(c), the Court may reduce commissions if

required filings do not occur within their prescribed periods. 74

Here, I find the Respondent is entitled to her $2,000 commission. Considering

all factors under Rule 192(b), $2,000 (which represents 1.1% of the Estate’s value)

is not an excessive award for administering an estate with eight beneficiaries, a home

that had to be sold, creditors paid, and $180,529.84 in assets.75 Additionally, the

Respondent organized all required repairs to the electric and foundation of the Home

within the Estate prior to its sale.76 Further, the Respondent hired an attorney and an

auctioneer to maximize estate property. 77 Accordingly, I find this commission is

reasonable in proportion to the needs and size of the Estate.

Although I am given the discretion to reduce the commission due to late

filings, I decline to do so under these facts. The Respondent filed the second and

final accounting fifteen days before the deadline issued by (then) Master Griffin at

the Rule to Show Cause hearing.78 Although the Respondent previously failed to

73
In re Est. of Link, 2011 WL 2084161, at *1 (Del. Ch. May 5, 2011).
74
12 Del. C. § 2305.
75
D. I. 26.
76
Id.
77
Id.
78
Id.

12
provide a second and final accounting before the due date of October 30, 2017, she

did not have proceeds to report until the sale of the home.79 She also attributed the

delay in filing the second and final accounting until ordered at the Rule to Show

Cause hearing, because she was negotiating the outstanding claim for attorney fees

against the Estate. 80 Although the Respondent could have requested a stay of the

deadline, by that time, she was unrepresented. 81 Given the amount of work she put

in as the personal representative, I am inclined to afford her some leniency in this

particular circumstance.

B. The Respondent improperly allocated fees to the Petitioner Peter
Kennedy and should be surcharged.

Petitioners also claim that the Respondent improperly allocated attorney fees

to one beneficiary, Peter Kennedy.82 The Respondent claims that the high legal fees

are due to the Petitioners’ interference with the estate administration by overly

engaging with the Estate’s attorney starting in March of 2017 and continuing through

the fall of that year.83 As such, the Respondent asserts that the attorney fees should

79
Ct. Ch. R. 192; D. I. 18.
80
D. I. 19; D. I. 26.
81
D. I. 18; Wanamaker v. Wanamaker, 2024 WL 416498, at *5 (Del. Ch. Feb. 5, 2024).
82
D. I. 41.
83
Id.

13
solely come out of Petitioner Peter Kennedy’s distributions and she ultimately

deducted them from his beneficial interest. 84

In the context of estate administration, the general rule is that attorney fees

are considered an expense of the estate. 85 “The rational[e] behind this rule is that the

personal representative and his or her attorney is providing a service to the estate

and its beneficiaries by properly and efficiently administering the estate.” 86 As a

policy matter, attorney fees could be charged to a beneficiary when the beneficiary

has acted in bad faith causing the fees. 87 This is the case when a beneficiary acts

unreasonably or in bad faith when contacting counsel for the Estate.88

Although the Respondent assessed the attorney fees against Petitioner Peter

Kennedy and deducted them from his distribution, I find they should have been

attributed to the Estate. 89 The Petitioners initially contacted the Estate’s attorney on

or around March 2, 2017 to discuss problems with the Estate.90 Fees from

84
Tr. 12:18-24; Respondent’s Post-Hearing Submission, pgs. 21-22.
85
Est. of Chambers, 2020 WL 3173032, at *3 (Del. Ch. June 12, 2020) (citing In re Est. of
Pusey, 1997 WL 311503, at *3 (Del. Ch. May 23, 1997)).
86
Id.
87
Matter of Est. of O’Neill, 2024 WL 1317063, at *7 (Del. Ch. Mar. 28, 2024), adopted
sub nom. In re O’Neill (Del. Ch. 2024) (stating that attorney fees from beneficiaries
challenging the administration of the estate will be assessed against the estate only where
the challenge is in good faith).
88
Id.
89
Tr. 12:18-24; Respondent’s Post-Hearing Submission, pgs. 21-22.
90
Id.

14
beneficiaries contacting an estate’s attorneys are a foreseeable expense when an

estate remains open for a prolonged period.91 The Petitioners’ contact with the

Estate’s attorney is not a significant part of the total attorney fees and does not

warrant individually assessed fees against Petitioner Peter Kennedy.92 The

Respondent, in her role as Executrix of the Estate, has a duty to communicate with

the beneficiaries regarding the administration of the estate,93 and there is insufficient

evidence to suggest that Petitioner Peter Kennedy contacted counsel in bad faith.

Moreover, in accordance with the legal invoices, other beneficiaries and even the

Respondent’s spouse, had communications and/or meetings with the attorney for the

estate but their shares were not reduced. Therefore, because the attorney fees relate

to communication with the beneficiaries, they fall within the administration of the

estate and were improperly allocated by the Respondent.

Additionally, Respondent testified that she also reduced Petitioner Peter

Kennedy’s amount by $225.00, which represents additional fees the Register of

Wills charged the Estate. 94 Respondent indicates this stems from Petitioner Peter

91
Matter of Pusey, 1997 WL 311503, at *4 (Del. Ch. May 23, 1997).
92
Petitioner’s Exhibit E.
93
IMO Est. of Rose, 2019 WL 2996887, at *7 (Del. Ch. July 9, 2019); An executrix of an
estate stands in the position of a fiduciary and therefore owes a duty of care, loyalty, and
good faith to the beneficiaries.
94
Tr. 12:18-24.

15
Kennedy constantly calling and showing up at the Register of Wills office.95 $25.00

of this represented the charge for the Rule to Show Cause hearing in January of

2019. 96 The remaining $200.00 represents the late fee for the second and final

accounting.97 Although Respondent believes these should be attributed to Petitioner

Peter Kennedy, these expenses were related to her administration and failing to

timely file paperwork with the Register of Wills. As such, these expenses should

also have been charged to the Estate and not deducted from Petitioner Peter

Kennedy’s share.

The Petitioners and the Respondent agree that the base amount each sibling

would have received if the balance was equally distributed under the Will is

$22,566.23.98 According to the Respondent, the Petitioner Peter Kennedy’s share

was subsequently reduced by $8,044.75 representing attorneys fees, $225.00 in

ROW’s extra fees, and $8.57 in certified mail fees, for a total of $8,278.32. This

amount should have been attributed to all 8 siblings for the reasons stated herein.

Attributing this amount to each sibling would have resulted in Petitioner Peter

95
Tr. 13:1-3.
96
Tr. 12:21-23; D. I. 26, pg. 4.
97
Tr. 12:23-24; D. I. 26, pg. 4.
98
Petitioner’s Post-Hearing submission, pg. 4; Respondent’s Post-Hearing submission, pg.
1.

16
Kennedy’s share of these expenses as $1,034.79 and not the $8,278.32 his share was

reduced. As such, Petitioner Peter Kennedy is owed $7,243.53. Because the attorney

fees and ROW fees should have been charged to the estate where each beneficiary

would have effectively absorbed a 1/8 share of the cost, I recommend the Court

surcharge the Respondent in the amount of $7,243.53. A total of 7/8 of the cost of

the fees.99

When an administrator breaches their duties to the Estate and its beneficiaries

and there is a resulting loss because of those breaches, the administrator will be

subjected to a surcharge. 100 “A surcharge is, essentially, a sanction against a personal

representative requiring the personal representative to fund (or refund) the estate

because the personal representative improperly or poorly handled the estate, engaged

in self-dealing, or improperly depleted estate assets. . . . [S]urcharges are normally

tailored to remedy the specific harm caused, rather than to punish the personal

representative.” 101

Here, I find the Respondent breached her duties to the Estate and its

beneficiaries by improperly allocating fees to one beneficiary and reducing his share.

99
$7,243.53 is calculated by the total attorney fees, ROW fee, and certified mail fee to
Peter Kennedy ($8,278.32 ) being equally allocated among the beneficiaries ($1,034.79 per
beneficiary) and subtracting $1,034.79 from the total attorney fees assessed against Peter
Kennedy.
100
Del. Tr. Co. v. McCune, 80 A.2d 507, 511 (Del. Ch. 1951).
101
In re Clark, 2019 WL 3022904, at *7 (Del. Ch. July 9, 2019).

17
Because the Estate is closed and the misallocation by Respondent only affected Peter

Kennedy, the surcharge should be paid in full to Peter Kennedy and account for his

1/8 share in the fee at $1,034.79. This properly accounts for the harm the Respondent

caused to the beneficiary Peter Kennedy when his share was improperly reduced. I

decline to award a judgment to Respondent from the other beneficiaries to account

for their share of the fees as the mistake is the Respondent’s error.

C. Except for Peter Kennedy, the unequal distributions under the Will
were justified.

The Petitioners claim Respondent did not execute the Will as written by the

testator. 102 Article 6 of the Will directs the Respondent to devise and bequeath the

remainder of the Decedent’s property “in equal shares to his eight children, Phillip

A. Kennedy Jr., Paula M. Wilson, Patricia A. Still, Pamela J. Giles, Patrick J.

Kennedy, Paul J. Kennedy, Phyllis A. Cuomo, and Peter J. Kennedy.”103 The

Respondent sold the home on March 21, 2018, for $230,000 and reported total

proceeds from the sale of $204,134.38.104 The Respondent claimed $20,139.59 in

administrative expenses, including $8,044.75 for attorney fees paid to the Estate

attorney and $2,000 for the Respondent’s commissions.105 Additionally, closing

102
D. I. 28.
103
D. I. 3 (Will at pgs. 1-2).
104
D. I. 26.
105
Id.

18
costs totaled $3,464.91, leaving a balance of $180,529.84 to be distributed from the

Estate. 106

The Will devises the remainder of the Estate in equal shares to the eight

beneficiaries.107 If the Respondent had distributed the proceeds in accordance with

Article 6 of the Will, each beneficiary would have received an equal distribution in

the amount of $22,566.23. 108 Instead, the Respondent distributed proceeds from the

Estate in varying amounts as mentioned above. 109

There is no ambiguity or complicated distribution scheme in this matter. The

Will devises the proceeds in eight equal shares.110 However, some of the

beneficiaries’ shares were reduced to balance out the $1,253.60 cash value of the

insurance policies that four of the beneficiaries received.111 That money was then

evenly split between all eight beneficiaries. 112 It appears the siblings agreed to this

106
Id.
107
D. I. 3 (Will at pgs. 1-2).
108
Id; D. I. 26; Petitioner’s Post-Hearing submission, pg. 4; Respondent’s Post-Hearing
submission, pg. 1.
109
Tr. 6:17-7:20.
110
D. I. 3. (Will at pgs. 1-2).
Respondent’s Post-Hearing Submission, pgs. 21-22 and 38 (Of the $1,253.60, Phyllis
111

Garrett was the beneficiary of $255.87, Pamela Giles was the beneficiary of $346.83, Paul
Kennedy was the beneficiary of $344.78, and Peter Kennedy was the beneficiary of
$306.12).
112
Id.

19
arrangement and is not being disputed by the Petitioners, so I decline to alter the

insurance distributions. Also, the Respondent’s reimbursements for the

Respondent’s out of pocket expenses also appear to be in order.

The only distributions or reductions that appear to be improper under the Will

are the attorneys fees, ROWs fees, and the certified mail fee assessed to Petitioner

Peter Kennedy. The Respondent, even after this Court's clarification, assessed all

attorney fees and the ROW fees against Petitioner Peter Kennedy’s shares. 113 For

the reasons previously stated above, these fees were attributable to the Estate and the

Respondent will be surcharged for this incorrect distribution by having to reimburse

Petitioner Kennedy what he should have received if Respondent acted in accordance

with the terms of the Will.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Petitioners’ request to reduce commissions

is denied. I find the $2,000 commission to be reasonable under the circumstances for

the administration of this estate. I further find that the Respondent improperly

allocated estate fees to Petitioner Peter Kennedy which should have been attributable

to the Estate. Therefore, I order the Respondent to reimburse Petitioner Peter

Kennedy $7,243.53 within 30 days, or a judgment will be issued against her.

113
Tr. 11:17-19; Tr. 12:16-13:3; Petitioner’s Exhibit E.

20
This is a Final Report under Court of Chancery Rule 144. Exceptions may be

taken within eleven days of the date hereof. 114

114
See Ct. Ch. R. 144(d)(1) (In “[a]ctions that are not summary or expedited… [a] party
taking exceptions must file a notice of exceptions within 11 days of the date of the Final
report or Draft Report.” ). To the extent, either party has an objection to the mathematical
calculation, a motion for reargument under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) or a motion for
relief from judgment due to a clerical error under Court of Chancery Rule 60 are more
appropriate options in lieu of filing exceptions.

21