Background
Eugenie Stanton and Burim Myrteza were the two children of Pellump and Gjyltan Myrteza, who died intestate. In 2024, Burim was granted letters of administration for both estates. Their principal asset was land at Pallara, Queensland, which was subject to telecommunications leases generating substantial rent.
Stanton sought Burim’s removal. She alleged that he had treated lease income as his own, including $131,439.70 received under a lease executed in his capacity as personal representative; delayed the administration and payment of estate debts; and agreed to sell the land for $1.7 million to a company directed by a former business colleague, despite evidence suggesting a substantially higher value. Burim maintained that he personally owned the lease income, the sale was at arm’s length and fairly priced, and that he was entitled to the property under longstanding family arrangements and proprietary estoppel.
The Court’s Holding
Smith J removed Burim Myrteza as administrator of both estates under s 6 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld), revoked both grants of letters of administration, and appointed solicitor Kent William Dalziel as independent administrator. The Court ordered the estate property to vest in Dalziel, authorised his registration as proprietor of the deceaseds’ real property, and required Burim to deliver relevant estate documents within 14 days.
The Court did not finally determine the disputed ownership of the leases, the rental income, the land’s value, or Burim’s asserted proprietary-estoppel claim. But it found that Burim faced significant actual conflicts: his personal claim to lease income that may belong to the estates; the proposed sale at a potentially substantial undervalue to a former colleague; and his assertion that Stanton had no entitlement to the estates. His delay, failure to pay debts and reluctance to provide documents reinforced the conclusion that he should not remain administrator.
Key Takeaways
- An administrator may be removed where actual conflicts jeopardise the proper administration of an estate, even if the underlying disputes have not yet been finally resolved.
- A personal representative cannot impartially administer an estate while advancing personal claims to estate assets or seeking to defeat another beneficiary’s entitlement.
- The Court may revoke letters of administration and appoint an independent administrator with authority to take control of estate property and documents.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Supreme Court’s protective and supervisory role over intestate estates. The central question was not whether Burim’s substantive claims would ultimately succeed, but whether his conflicting interests and conduct made continued administration unsafe for the estates and their beneficiaries.
For succession practitioners, the case underscores the importance of promptly disclosing conflicts, accounting for estate income, paying liabilities, and ensuring that dealings with major estate assets can withstand independent scrutiny.