- 24 -
We reject the estate’s position that the personal represen-
tatives of decedent’s estate would have been entitled to maximum
compensation under Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, sec. 7-601(b) in
the amount of $32,237. The maximum compensation of the personal
representative of an estate prescribed by that section is de-
signed to compensate such representative for all of the ordinary
work of administering an estate subject to administration, see
Lehman v. Kairys, 217 Md. 359, 364, 142 A.2d 546, 548 (1958);
Talbert v. Reeves, 211 Md. 275, 283, 127 A.2d 533, 538 (1956),
and is determined by reference to the amount of property subject
to administration. The value of decedent’s property as of the
date of her death that was subject to administration was no more
than $11,253.8 Thus, the maximum compensation of the estate’s
personal representatives under Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, sec.
8The value of decedent’s non-Trust property as of the date
of decedent’s death was $11,253. Included within that non-Trust
property was a money market mutual fund account with a balance of
$7,228, which decedent and Ms. Adams jointly owned on the date of
decedent’s death. The parties do not address whether under
Maryland law that jointly owned money market mutual fund account
would be considered property subject to administration. We
assume for purposes of this Opinion that the jointly owned money
market mutual fund account was property subject to administration
in Maryland, an assumption which favors the estate in calculating
the maximum compensation payable to a personal representative
under Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, sec. 7-601(b).
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011