Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 113.195 (2026)

Removal of personal representative

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      113.195 Removal of personal representative. (1) When a personal representative ceases to be qualified as provided in ORS 113.095, or becomes incapable of discharging duties, the court shall remove the personal representative.

      (2) When a personal representative has been unfaithful to or neglectful of the trust, the court may remove the personal representative.

      (3) When a personal representative has failed to comply with ORS 113.092, the court may remove the personal representative.

      (4) For other good cause shown, the court may remove the personal representative.

      (5) When grounds for removal of a personal representative appear to exist, the court, on its own motion or on the petition of any interested person, shall order the personal representative to appear and show cause why the personal representative should not be removed. A copy of the order to show cause and of the petition, if any, shall be served upon the personal representative and upon the surety of the personal representative as provided in ORS 111.215. [1969 c.591 §99; 1975 c.781 §9; 2017 c.169 §19]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Warkentin v. Shirey, 480 P.3d 289 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Warkentin v. Shirey, 480 P.3d 289 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 21× “Rather, he contended, that the court should refer to ORS 113.195, which provides the statutory bases for removal of a personal representative.”
Kuang v. Kuang, 336 Or. App. 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “Tina’s objection to Grace serving as personal representative Tina then moved the trial court to remove Grace as personal representative pursuant to ORS 113.195(4), which provides that “the court may remove the personal representa- tive” for “good cause.”
Holst v. Purdy, 844 P.2d 229 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “The probate court found that *311 Leland’s actions were loyal to Anna’s desires and that there was nothing to justify his removal.”
Roley v. Sammons, 170 P.3d 1067 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “ORS 113.195 defines the circumstances for mandatory and permissive removal of a personal representative.”
Warkentin v. Shirey, 481 P.3d 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “25(1)(a) for a “claim of factual error in the decision.” Specifically, he requests that we remove the line “Respondent was the decedent’s neigh- bor” because that factual assertion “is not contained in the record.”
Kuang v. Kuang, 336 Or. App. 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “Tina’s objection to Grace serving as personal representative Tina then moved the trial court to remove Grace as personal representative pursuant to ORS 113.195(4), which provides that “the court may remove the personal representa- tive” for “good cause.”
Maloney v. Bryant (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “” We have construed that phrase broadly to allow a “court in its discretion to remove a personal representative to prevent problems from arising in the probate, including discord between the personal representative and the benefi- ciaries of the estate.”
Crittenden v. Hanna, 562 P.2d 609 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “) The relevant portions of ORS 113.195 provide: "(1) When a personal representative ceases to be qualified as provided in ORS 113.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 113.195(1) — 2 cases
Warkentin v. Shirey, 480 P.3d 289 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “Rather, he contended, that the court should refer to ORS 113.195, which provides the statutory bases for removal of a personal representative.”
Roley v. Sammons, 170 P.3d 1067 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “ORS 113.195 defines the circumstances for mandatory and permissive removal of a personal representative.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 113.195(2) — 2 cases
Holst v. Purdy, 844 P.2d 229 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “The probate court found that *311 Leland’s actions were loyal to Anna’s desires and that there was nothing to justify his removal.”
Roley v. Sammons, 170 P.3d 1067 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “ORS 113.195 defines the circumstances for mandatory and permissive removal of a personal representative.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 113.195(4) — 5 cases
Warkentin v. Shirey, 480 P.3d 289 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “Rather, he contended, that the court should refer to ORS 113.195, which provides the statutory bases for removal of a personal representative.”
Kuang v. Kuang, 336 Or. App. 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “Tina’s objection to Grace serving as personal representative Tina then moved the trial court to remove Grace as personal representative pursuant to ORS 113.195(4), which provides that “the court may remove the personal representa- tive” for “good cause.”
Warkentin v. Shirey, 481 P.3d 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “25(1)(a) for a “claim of factual error in the decision.” Specifically, he requests that we remove the line “Respondent was the decedent’s neigh- bor” because that factual assertion “is not contained in the record.”
Kuang v. Kuang, 336 Or. App. 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “Tina’s objection to Grace serving as personal representative Tina then moved the trial court to remove Grace as personal representative pursuant to ORS 113.195(4), which provides that “the court may remove the personal representa- tive” for “good cause.”
Maloney v. Bryant (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “” We have construed that phrase broadly to allow a “court in its discretion to remove a personal representative to prevent problems from arising in the probate, including discord between the personal representative and the benefi- ciaries of the estate.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.