IMO Estate of George Kenneth Trammell, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IMO ESTATE OF GEORGE KENNETH TRAMMELL, JR. ) ) Register of Wills No. 271-S MASTER S FINAL REPORT Submitted: February 4, 2010 Bench Decision: February 4, 2010 Final Report: February 9, 2010 Kermick Trammell, pro se, Exceptant. George K. Trammell, III, pro se, Personal Representative for Estate GLASSCOCK, Master This report will memorialize my bench decision of February 4, 2010, and will serve as my final report. The decedent, George Trammell, Jr., died in 2008, intestate. His son, George Trammell, III, ( George )1 was appointed administrator of his estate. A second son of the decedent, Kermick Trammell ( Kermick ) filed a pleading styled Exceptions to [George s] Petition to act as Personal Representative. Since the original petition has been granted by the Register of Wills, and since George has been appointed as administrator, I have treated the exceptions as a petition to remove the administrator. Kermick s main complaint, as expressed at the hearing, is that he has received no information about the estate and its assets from George. After George s testimony, it became clear that there were a number of independent grounds on which to remove George as administrator. First, 12 Del C. §1508 provides that letters ¦of administration, shall not be granted ¦to a person convicted of a crime disqualifying the person from taking an oath. An administrator must swear to perform his duty with fidelity. 12 Del. C. § 1509. George testified that he is a felon, convicted of second-degree forgery. This Court has previously found that, for purposes of § 1508, the disqualifying crimes are infamous crimes, in other words, felonies. In Re Estate of Jackson, Del. Ch., No. 99783, Allen, Ch. (Jan. 18, 1993)(Order)(affirming Master s Report). Our Supreme Court has since interpreted the phrase infamous crime in another context more 1 I use first names in this report, not out of disrespect, but to avoid confusion. 2 narrowly, indicating that a court must examine the purposes for exclusion of those guilty of infamous crimes from the class in question, as well as the type and circumstances of the crime committed, in determining whether a particular crime shall be regarded as infamous. See e.g., In Re Request of Governor for Advisory Opinion, Del. Supr., 950 A.2d 651 (June 24, 2008). Even should that Court s rationale apply to § 1508, however, it is clear that forgery a crime involving creating or maintaining a written instrument without authority, with the intent to defraud, deceive or injure another is precisely the type of crime that would prevent the swearing of an effective oath, and that would suggest the felon s unfitness to serve as a fiduciary for the estate.2 Since George is statutorily unqualified to serve as administrator, he must be removed. A number of independent reasons exist to remove George. First, George falsely swore to the veracity of the contents of his verified petition to serve as administrator, which indicated that he was the sole next of kin, and failed to disclose that Kermick is also decedent s son. According to George, he failed to be forthcoming on this petition because he wanted to prevent Kermick s involvement in the estate. Next, George made it clear at the hearing that despite the fact that his father had died intestate, he intended to carry out his father s true wishes, that the estate should go to George solely and not to Kermick. Third, George testified that the reason he has not filed the required estate inventory and accounting is that he does not want Kermick to have knowledge concerning 2 See 11 Del. C. § 861. 3 the estate. These filings are significantly overdue. If an ¦administrator neglects official duties, the Court of Chancery may remove [him] from office. 12 Del. C. § 1541. Because it is clear that George is unable or unwilling to administer the estate in accordance with the applicable statutes, it would be appropriate to remove him for failure to comply with his responsibilities as administrator even if he were eligible to serve under § 1508. Because George is unqualified to serve pursuant to 12 Del. C. § 1508, and because the record persuades me that, even if qualified, he should be removed under 12 Del. C. § 1541, this matter is remanded to the Register of Wills for Sussex County for appointment of a successor administrator. /s/ Sam Glasscock, III Master in Chancery cc: Register of Wills (SC) 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
