Estate of Svacina

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Schmitz

    667 N.W.2d 862 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    The statutes [throughout the United States] are, in the main, broadly inclusive as to the persons qualified to act as executors and have been liberally interpreted by the courts to carry out the expressed wishes of testators with regard to the persons who should administer their estates."Svacina v. East Wis. Tr. Co., 239 Wis. 436, 446, 1 N.W.2d 780 (1942) (emphasis added; quoted source omitted). Indeed, "a statute specifying the grounds of removal [of a personal representative] is usually held to preclude a removal upon grounds not specified."

  2. Bramen v. Angelopulos

    762 N.W.2d 863 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008)

    ¶ 12 With the foregoing discussion in mind, we address briefly Bramen's argument that the circuit court's order failed to give sufficient weight to Monroe's testamentary wishes. We agree with Bramen that in Wisconsin a testator retains the right to appoint whomever he or she wishes as trustee. SeeSvacina v. East Wis. Tr. Co., 239 Wis. 436, 443-44, 1 N.W.2d 780 (1942). "[N]o discretion is vested in courts with respect to refusing to grant letters testamentary [appointing a trustee or personal representative] to the persons nominated in a will, unless such persons are expressly disqualified, or unless such discretion is vested by law."

  3. State ex rel. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Racine v. Skow

    91 Wis. 2d 773 (Wis. 1979)   Cited 28 times

    Judge Skow concedes that, prior to the enactment of the Probate Code, Chapter 339, Laws of 1969, a probate court was required to appoint as executor a person nominated by a testator if the nominee was legally competent, willing, and gave bond when and as required by law. Sec. 310.12, Stats. 1969; Estate of Svacina, 239 Wis. 436, 444, 1 N.W.2d 780 (1942). "Legally competent" was never expressly defined, but decisions by this court have indicated that legal incompetency could be found when, at the time of appointment, the nominee was prevented from acting as executor by reason of his mental condition, Saxe v. Saxe, 119 Wis. 557, 560, 97 N.W. 187 (1903); by reason of serious conflict between personal interest and an immediate duty of the executor, Estate of Keske, 18 Wis.2d 47, 55, 117 N.W.2d 575 (1962); or by reason of some legal disability, such as minority. See: sec. 310.17, Stats. 1969. A nominee could not be found legally incompetent to serve merely because the heirs objected to the nominee's temper, disposition, habits, and moral character, Saxe, supra at 560; or because of the probate court's conclusion that it was for the best interest of the estate and all persons concerned that another be appointed as administrator. Svacina, supra at 440.

  4. Estate of Keske

    117 N.W.2d 575 (Wis. 1962)   Cited 7 times

    (1903), 119 Wis. 557, 560, 97 N.W. 187.Estate of Svacina (1942), 239 Wis. 436, 1 N.W.2d 780. The most commonly accepted view elsewhere has been that one who is of sound mind and not subject to any express statutory disqualification is "legally competent" as executor.

  5. Johnson v. Richards

    52 N.W.2d 737 (Neb. 1952)   Cited 25 times

    In this state and many of the other states the authority of an executor, while derived primarily from the will is not derived solely therefrom, is not complete until the court has approved his nomination, the executor has qualified by complying with certain statutory requirements, and has been granted letters testamentary by the court. In re Estate of Blochowitz, 124 Neb. 110, 245 N.W. 440; In re Estate of Haeffele, 145 Neb. 809, 18 N.W.2d 228; State ex rel. Huber v. Tazwell, 132 Or. 122, 283 p. 745; In re Birkholz's Estate (Iowa), 197 N.W. 896; Davenport v. Sandeman, 204 Iowa 927, 216 N.W. 55; In re Estate of Swanson, 239 Iowa 294, 31 N.W.2d 385; Estate of Svacina, 239 Wis. 436, 1 N.W.2d 780; Annotation, 95 A. L. R. 828; 33 C. J. S., Executors and Administrators, 22, p. 903. Richards became executor of the will of Mary E. Dryden when he was appointed and qualified on the 3d day of November 1950.

  6. Will of Reimers

    7 N.W.2d 857 (Wis. 1943)   Cited 10 times

    While it is the policy of our law not to favor the appointment of a nonresident as administrator, nonresidence is not an absolute disqualification to so act. Estate of Sargent, 62 Wis. 130, 133, 22 N.W. 131. In Estate of Svacina, 239 Wis. 436, 447, 1 N.W.2d 780, the court said: "Residence in Wisconsin is not required to make appellant legally competent to act as executrix under sec. 310.12, Stats.