Court of Chancery Declines to Order Return of Estate Asset or Shift Fees After Removal of Co-Executrix
In the Matter of the Estate of Elton George, Jr., C.A. No. 2025-0194-DG (October 5, 2026)
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently issued an order resolving a dispute between sibling co-executrixes of their late father’s estate. LaKeisha Joy Conkey (“Petitioner”) and Talisa Elton (“Respondent”) are the surviving children of their father, Elton George, Jr. (“Decedent”). In October 2023, Petitioner and Respondent opened Decedent’s Estate (the “Estate”) as co-executrixes. On February 21, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition in the Delaware Court of Chancery asking the court to remove Respondent as co-executrix, direct Respondent to return property belonging to Decedent, and tax Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs against Respondent’s share of the Estate (the “Petition”).
Petitioner alleged that Respondent failed to retain counsel, acted uncooperatively toward Petitioner, refused to sign or delayed filing an Estate inventory, removed and withheld the title to Decedent’s Dodge Ram and refused to sign paperwork to obtain a duplicate title, and otherwise failed to act in accordance with her fiduciary duties. On October 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a proposed schedule to bring her action to trial, which the court granted with modifications. Respondent failed to provide or propose any materials, leaving Petitioner to file her own portions of a pretrial order and an exhibit list.
During the one-day trial on February 24, 2026, the court heard testimony on five contested issues: (i) Respondent’s alleged resistance to participating in the administration of the Estate and responding to communications from Petitioner; (ii) Respondent’s denial that she signed the petition to open the Estate as co-executors, which appeared to have been filed by both parties; (iii) the retention and role of former Estate counsel; (iv) the missing title to Decedent’s Dodge Ram; and (v) the apparent forced entry, after Decedent’s death, into a safe at Decedent’s home.
Before the court ruled on the Petition, it issued a separate order on October 2, 2026 to remove Respondent from her role as co-executrix (the “Removal Order”) after Respondent failed to show good cause for ignoring the court’s rulings on Petitioner’s exceptions to Respondent’s inventory and the court’s direction to work with Petitioner to file an amended inventory. As a result, Petitioner became the sole executor of the Estate.
Ultimately, on October 5, 2026, the court ordered that Petitioner’s request to remove Respondent as co-executrix is moot considering the Removal Order. Petitioner’s request for an order requiring Respondent to return the title to the Dodge Ram was denied because Petitioner did not prove that Respondent possessed the title, and the court noted that Petitioner could obtain a duplicate title as the sole executor of the Estate. Finally, the court denied without prejudice Petitioner’s request to tax her attorney’s fees and costs against Respondent’s share of the Estate. In light of the Removal Order, the court found it unnecessary to reach Petitioner’s allegations that Respondent breached her fiduciary duties. However, the court left open whether a surcharge may be appropriate in connection with the final accounting or closing of the Estate if either party establishes circumstances warranting such relief.
Together, these rulings illustrate the court’s approach to resolving disputes arising from the administration of an estate and the conduct of co-executors. The decision underscores the importance of cooperation, compliance with court orders, and proper administration of estate assets. Practitioners should ensure that co-executors fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities and comply with court directives to avoid removal, additional litigation, and potential financial consequences at the final accounting.
This blog entry was primarily authored by Sierra Turner.
