In an ongoing dispute over the disposition of a $3.1-million estate between a deceased woman’s brother, who served as administrator of her estate, and the estate of her former partner, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has ordered that the brother should be removed from his role as administrator after improperly taking money out of the estate to pay personal expenses.
The dispute arose over the estate of Sharon Clark, who died without a will in 2020, between her brother, David Clark, and Dikran Matheos Matossian, who had a nearly 40-year relationship with Clark.
At the heart of the dispute was whether Matossian was in a marriage-like relationship with Clark, which would entitle him to inherit the estate, or, if the estate should pass to her brother.
Before that dispute could be resolved, Matossian died in 2022. His estate continued the litigation.
In late 2024, after a 13-day hearing, the court ruled that the couple was in a marriage-like relationship, and that Matossian’s estate was entitled to inherit the proceeds of her estate — although, earlier this year, the Court of Appeal for B.C. agreed to hear an appeal of that ruling from Clark’s brother.
That appeal has yet to be heard, but in the meantime, the Supreme Court of B.C. has now ordered that Clark be removed as administrator of his late sister’s estate.
According to the court’s ruling, starting in mid-2024, Clark began taking money out of the estate to pay personal legal expenses. In March of this year, he repaid that money — about $300,000 — yet the Matossian estate asked the court to remove him from his role as administrator, and to replace him with Matossian’s executor.
Clark opposed that request, arguing, among other things, that removing him as administrator of the estate would be disruptive if his appeal succeeds.
In its decision, the court noted that while an executor or an estate trustee can be removed, courts are generally reluctant to interfere with the right to choose your own executor.
“The main consideration in removing an executor or trustee is the collective welfare of the beneficiaries,” it said. Beyond this, there are no hard and fast rules for determining whether an executor should be removed, it added.
In this case, the court concluded that “removal of the administrator is warranted … due to a want of honesty, lack of reasonable fidelity, and want of capacity to perform the duties of an administrator.”
“As the plaintiff highlighted, the withdrawals of funds from the account of the estate involved significant amounts (in the tens of thousands of dollars) made over a significant period of time. Further, they were not disclosed to the plaintiff even after the plaintiff was successful at the trial,” it said.
Additionally, the court said that “based on the evidence, there is little recognition by the administrator of the seriousness of his misconduct and breach of trust.”
“In my view, the administrator’s misconduct and his failure to take full responsibility rise to the level of endangering the administration of the estate. Finally, although there is an outstanding appeal, the interests of the beneficiaries must be protected,” it said.
As a result, the court ordered that Clark be removed, and it appointed Matossian’s executor, Marcus von Albrecht, as the new administrator of the estate. It also ordered Clark to transfer the assets of the estate to von Albrecht in his capacity as executor of the Matossian estate.