## Facts

- Carryl L. Walter died testate in 2011; her will left substantial portions of the estate to charitable beneficiaries and made specific bequests, including a valuable coin collection to the National Military Family Association (NMFA).
- Lynn M. Walter, a professional bookkeeper, was appointed executrix and retained attorney Karl Rominger to assist with administration, consistent with the will’s directive.
- Lynn allowed Rominger to sell the coin collection based on his claim that NMFA preferred cash and permitted the proceeds to be transferred to an account under Rominger’s sole control.
- Rominger embezzled the sale proceeds and, over time, additional estate funds were misappropriated through estate-related accounts.
- Lynn received overdraft notices and other indications of financial irregularities but continued to accept Rominger’s assurances and did not independently investigate, demand transparent accountings, or intervene to protect estate assets.
- The Commonwealth, acting as *parens patriae* due to the charitable beneficiaries, petitioned to void improper distributions and address misappropriation; the matter ultimately included allegations against both Rominger and Lynn.
- The orphans’ court removed Lynn for conflict and appointed a successor fiduciary; objections were later filed to Lynn’s account.
- After hearing, the orphans’ court sustained multiple objections, found improper distributions and misappropriation attributable to Lynn’s deficient oversight, and imposed a surcharge of approximately $391,868.45.
- Lynn appealed, arguing she acted in good faith and relied on counsel and should not be held responsible for her attorney’s criminal conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether an executrix breaches fiduciary duties by failing to exercise due diligence and supervision over estate administration when the estate attorney controls assets and commits embezzlement.
2. Whether an executrix’s claimed good faith and reliance on advice and assurances of counsel constitutes a complete defense to surcharge for estate losses.
3. Whether the record supported a causal connection between the executrix’s conduct and the estate’s losses sufficient to sustain the amount of the surcharge.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the order sustaining objections to Lynn’s account and imposing the surcharge.
- The court held the orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion in finding Lynn breached fiduciary duties by failing to exercise appropriate oversight and vigilance.
- The court held reliance on counsel did not excuse Lynn’s non-delegable fiduciary responsibilities, particularly in light of concrete warning signs.
- The court held the surcharge was proper because Lynn’s inattention and delegation of control over assets were substantial factors enabling the losses and delaying detection.

## Legal Principles

- A personal representative is a fiduciary required to exercise the highest good faith and due care in safeguarding and administering estate assets.
- Surcharge may be imposed when a fiduciary’s negligence, inattention, or failure to supervise causes loss to the estate, even absent personal theft or personal benefit.
- A fiduciary’s duty to supervise estate administration is non-delegable; employing counsel does not permit abdication of responsibility for asset protection and prudent administration.
- Reliance on counsel may bear on good faith but is not a complete defense where the fiduciary ignores red flags or permits professionals to control estate assets without meaningful oversight.
- Appellate review of orphans’ court findings is deferential; supported factual findings and discretionary surcharge determinations are upheld absent an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a substantial surcharge against a removed executrix, holding that an executor’s fiduciary duty to protect estate assets cannot be delegated to counsel and that good-faith reliance on an attorney does not bar surcharge when the executor fails to supervise and disregards warning signs that permit misappropriation and improper distributions.


In re Estate of Walter, 191 A.3d 873 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018)