Estate of Constance R. Grant - Page 33




                                        - 33 -                                         

          executors in the course of the ordinary business of administering            
          an estate in Maryland, including long distance telephone calls,              
          hotel expenses, and airplane tickets, will not be considered                 
          expenses necessary to protect the estate if incurred only because            
          the executors are nonresidents.  See 59 Op. Atty. Gen. 613 (Md.              
          1974); 48 Op. Atty. Gen. 419 (Md. 1963).15                                   
               On the record before us, we further find that the estate has            
          failed to establish that the expenses claimed in Schedule L to               
          reimburse Mr. Grant and Ms. Adams for a total of 2,805 miles of              
          “local mileage incurred in settling estate” were necessarily                 


               15Although since those opinions of the Attorney General of              
          Maryland were issued there have been some changes in Md. Code                
          Ann., Est. & Trusts, sec. 7-601, relating to compensation of the             
          personal representatives of an estate, none of those changes has             
          had any effect on those opinions.  Indeed, in 59 Op. Atty. Gen.              
          613 (Md. 1974), the Attorney General of Maryland cited with                  
          approval 48 Op. Atty. Gen. 419 (Md. 1963) and 21 Op. Atty. Gen.              
          709 (Md. 1936) and indicated that those two latter opinions                  
          “considered similar questions” to those being considered in 59               
          Op. Atty. Gen. 613 (Md. 1974).  In addition, in 59 Op. Atty. Gen.            
          613 (Md. 1974), the Attorney General stated:                                 
                    It is our opinion that the enactment of the pres-                  
               ent provisions of the Estates and Trusts Article was                    
               not intended to substantially change the law * * * and                  
               that the same result as reached in the above opinions                   
               [48 Op. Atty. Gen. 419 (Md. 1963) and 21 Op. Atty. Gen.                 
               709 (Md. 1936)] should continue to prevail.                             
          Nor did the changes to Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, sec. 7-601              
          that were enacted after 59 Op. Atty. Gen. 613 (Md. 1974) was                 
          issued and that were in effect on the date of decedent’s death               
          and thereafter through the administration of the estate change               
          the law considered by that opinion of the Maryland Attorney                  
          General.  See Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, sec. 7-601 (1991 &               
          Supp. 1998).                                                                 





Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011