Harp v. Pryor

Defendant, as executor of his mother's estate, violated the duty imposed in O.C.G.A. § 53-7-1 a, when he proposed a distribution that prevented his brother from gaining a controlling interest in the family company.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Douglas Harp appeals from an order on his “Petition for Executor to Distribute Estate Property.” For the reasons that follow, we reverse. Doris Landers Harp died on February 6, 2000. Under her will dated April 12, 1999, the three residual beneficiaries are her sons, Frank J. Pryor III, who is also the executor, Douglas Raymond Harp, and Stephen G. Harp.1 Section 4.02 of the will states that the residual estate is to be distributed to the residual beneficiaries “in equal shares.” The residuary estate consisted of cash and 9,244 shares of stock in a family company, Glenn Harp & Sons, Inc. Section 5.04 of the will authorizes the executor to “make distributions either in cash or in kind” and provides that “distributions in kind may be made at the discretion of my personal representative.”

Douglas Harp filed a “Petition for Executor to Distribute Estate Property” on August 20, 2001. As part of his answer, Pryor attached a letter dated August 31, 2001, which set forth Pryor’s proposed distribution, under which Douglas Harp would receive 262 shares of common stock, whereas Stephen G. Harp and Pryor would each receive 4,491 shares of stock.2 At the time of the decedent’s death, Douglas Harp owned 4,299 more shares of common stock of Glenn Harp & Sons, Inc., than did his brothers. If the stock was divided equally among the three brothers, Douglas Harp would be the controlling shareholder in the company; under Pryor’s proposed distribution, each of the three brothers would hold an equal number of shares. Pryor, to compensate for the disproportionate stock distribution, sent a check payable to Douglas Harp for $ 21,370.52, which Harp rejected. It is not disputed that Pryor’s proposed distribution gives an equal dollar value to each legatee. The probate court found that the distribution proposed by Pryor did not violate the terms of the will, and it is from this order that Douglas Harp appeals.

Harp v. Pryor

Defendant, as executor of his mother's estate, violated the duty imposed in O.C.G.A. § 53-7-1 a, when he proposed a distribution that prevented his brother from gaining a controlling interest in the family company.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report