St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church “St. Paul’s” filed a Petition to Remove Executor, seeking to remove Fred S. Clark “Clark” as executor of the estate of John Daniel Arnsdorff, Jr. the “Estate” and to deny him compensation. After a hearing, the probate court granted St. Paul’s petition and ordered Clark to forfeit over $79,000 in commissions and fees he had received and costs he had incurred as executor and attorney for the estate. Clark appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in removing him and that it lacked authority to order repayment. For the following reasons, we affirm. Clark was appointed executor of the Estate on September 27, 1999. Over a year later, St. Paul’s, which is a beneficiary under Arnsdorff’s will, petitioned the probate court to order Clark to provide an accounting of the Estate’s assets. The trial court held a hearing on the petition and issued an order requiring Clark to: file in this Court a Final Accounting of all receipts and disbursements of said estate, together with supporting vouchers or receipts and disbursements, within 30 days of the date of this order. Said accounting shall be in a format compatible with the official form used by this Court for accountings. In response, Clark filed a stack of documents which he characterized as an “accounting.”1 St. Paul’s then filed a petition to remove Clark as executor. Both parties presented evidence and testimony at a hearing on the petition. Subsequently, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order dated June 26, 2003, from which Clark appeals.
1. Initially, we address Clark’s contention that the trial court erred in dismissing him as executor of the Estate. In reviewing a probate court’s order removing an executor, we apply an abuse of discretion standard.2 A probate court has discretion to remove an executor upon the petition of any person having an interest in the estate or whenever it appears to the probate court that good cause may exist to revoke the letters of a personal representative or impose other sanctions . . . .3 Thus, “the relevant question in reviewing a removal order is whether the trial court had grounds to conclude that there was ‘good cause’ for the removal.”4 We will not set aside the trial court’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous.5
