Appellant urges removal of personal representative, says estate was harmed by asset recharacterizations

Erica Saint Louis, attorney for appellant Serena Kalkowski, asked the panel to reverse the trial court's denial of a motion to remove the personal representative, arguing the PR "acted in the best interest of herself, not the estate" and pursued litigation that benefited Anna Martinez personally.

Saint Louis told the court the PR filed a TEDRA action and repeatedly sought recharacterization of major assets (Firewater and Martinez Livestock) while using estate counsel and the estate's funds. "She was awarded the PR was awarded personally $670,000," Saint Louis said, and counsel estimated the estate paid attorney fees close to $300,000 to pursue positions that divested estate assets.

The appellant framed the argument as both a traditional conflict-of-interest claim and a claim of specific acts that were directly adverse to the estate. Saint Louis stressed that Anna was not a beneficiary under the will and that the PR's asserted claims therefore amounted to asserting ownership in estate assets rather than protecting estate interests. Saint Louis asked the panel to treat the actions taken after August 2020 as evidence of misconduct warranting removal.

A panel judge pressed whether a subsequent trial-court factual determination that some assets were community property forecloses a removal claim. Saint Louis replied that using estate resources to pursue personal claims and structurally divert value to the PR can harm the estate even if a court later characterizes assets differently.

The case was submitted after rebuttal argument; the panel did not rule at the hearing.