You may be an interested party to challenge a will but NOT an interested party to removing a Personal Representative.

In order to bring something to a court’s attention you have to have standing  which in probate usually means that you have to be an interested party to the adversarial probate proceeding. Do you know what that means? If you are deemed an interested party can you file any type of motion or proceeding relating to the will / probate that you want? The answer out of the Supreme Court of Montana may suprise you. Is it the same for Florida Probate?

• The Montana Supreme Court recently published its opinion regarding In re Estate of Lawlor, 378 Mont. 281 (Montana 2015).
• An interested party is traditionally some one that would be effected by the results, so if you want to remove a Personal Representative in Florida you will have to show the court that you are involved in the estate somewhat so that dealing with the Personal Rep. effects you. But what does that mean? How much do you have to show?
• Can the estate accountant consider himself an interested party if his office is inJupiter and the new Personal Representative is located far away in Miami Beach and he is sick of all the driving? 
• Palm Beach Probate Litigators challenge appointments and wills everyday and have to regularly show to the court how a party is really an interested party.

In re Estate of Lawlor draws the line of when an individual is or is not an interested party:

• The Personal Representative of testator’s estate filed motion to admit a will to informal probate but the will was challenged  by the daughter of testator because she was not in the will.
• The daughter alleged among other things that there was undue influence exercised over the testator. She then filed a motion to remove the Personal Representative.
• The Court came to an interesting conclusion when it held that she was an interested party to challenge the will (keep in mind if the will is gone, the man died intestatewhich guarentees her part of the estate) but she lacked standing (i.e. not an interested party) to remove the Personal Representative. 
• Does this opinion make sense? The dissent sure does not think so. What do you think?