Cases: Probate

Probate: General Equitable Powers Do Not Authorize Fee Recovery To A Trustee Sued In Her Individual Capacity Because Those Fees Would Not Benefit The Trust

Cases: Probate

Lack Of Statutory Authorization Was Dispositive Based On The Individual Stake For Fee Recovery—Equitable Powers Extended To Protect Trust Interests. McKinley v. Harris, Case No. G066032 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 13, 2026) (published) is of interest to probate practitioners.  The basic holding is that general “probate equitable principles” do not allow a trustee to

Fee Clause Interpretation, Probate, Settlement: Attorney’s Fees Were Assessed Against Trustee Based On Handwritten Settlement Agreement With A Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Probate, Cases: Settlement

Both Sides Were Represented By Counsel In The Negotiating and Signing of The Agreement. The Fifth District in Kirkland v. Beeck, Case No. F090251 (5th Dist. Aug. 26, 2026; posted Aug. 27, 2026) (unpublished), was a case involving dueling probate petitions by a trustee/beneficiary and a cousin beneficiary under a trust, with cousin prevailing and being

Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees: Probate Court’s Denial Of Successor Trustee’s Request For Attorney’s Fees Properly Denied

Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

The Fee Request Correctly Denied Because Trustee Breached The Trust, Sought To Recover Impermissible Fees Defending Her Removal, And Were Unreasonable In Nature. Estate of Disney, Case No. A171426 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 28, 2026) (unpublished) was a situation where successor trustee of grandmother’s trust was granted trustee’s and attorney’s fees/costs of a substantial

Probate, Sanctions: CCP § 128.7(b)(1) Sanctions Affirmed Against A Probate Litigant Filing A New Contesting Petition For An Improper Purpose

Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

CCP § 128.7(b)(2) Represented Litigant Exception Did Not Apply To (b)(1) Sanctions, Resulting In An Upholding Of A $25,013 Sanctions Award Against Losing Trustee. In Gerald C. Fox Foundation v. Fox, Case No. H053043 (6th Dist. Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), CCP § 128.7(b)(1) sanctions were imposed against a trustee who filed a new trust petition

Lis Pendens, Prevailing Party, Probate: Respondents In Probate Dispute Venued In Marin County Won Attorney’s Fees In Successfully Expunging A Lis Pendens And Then Won More Substantial Fees As The Prevailing Parties After Petitioner Voluntarily Dismissed A 850 Petition

Cases: Lis Pendens, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Probate

Various Statutes Gave Rise To Fee Entitlement In The Probate Case. One of our readers, Ronald Foreman of San Francisco’s Foreman & Brasso, sent us some interesting fee opinions in the Marin County Superior Court case of Matter of the Gregory Joseph Schoepp Living Trust, Case No. PR000248 [12/6/24 lis pendens expungement fee order and

Probate: Counsel Appointed To Represent A Conservatee Pursuant To Probate Code Section 1471 Was Entitled To Conservatorship-Related Compensation ….

Cases: Probate

However, Compensation For A Civil Proceeding Separate From The Conservatorship Could Not Be Compensated Under 1471; Rather Probate Code Section 2430 Requisites Had To Be Followed If Quasi-Contractual Recovery Was Being Sought For That Work. The Probate Code has many provisions allowing for compensation to attorneys in different contexts; however, the strictures under some of

Probate: Trustee Found Liable For Misappropriating Property Was Properly Assessed A Two-Fold Civil Penalty, As Well As Hit With Reasonable Attorney’s Fees And Costs

Cases: Probate

Probate Code Section 859 Was The Penalty And Fees/Costs Entitlement Statute. In a very sad set of facts, but ones under which beneficiaries prevailed against a misappropriating trustee, the lower court in Moramarco v. Nowakoski, Case No. E084620 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 5, 2026) (unpublished), following a State Bar disbarment/restitution order because trustee was

Allocation, Probate, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where There Were Dueling Probate Petitions For Financial Elder Abuse Claims, The Prevailing Petitioner—Even Though A Cross-Respondent Defensing The Unsuccessful Elder Abuse Petition—Was Entitled To Intertwined Fee Work For Prevailing As A Petitioner And Defending As A Cross-Respondent

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Probate, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Other Cases In Unilateral Fee-Shifting Contexts Were Distinguishable. In Haun v. Pagano, Case No. D084385 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 18, 2026) (published), the nature of the probate proceedings looks like it drove the result in the case as far as awarding fees under the financial elder abuse statute, which only allows unilateral fee-shifting in

Deadlines, Lodestar, Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees: In Probate Quabble, $63,958.75 To A Prevailing Party For Appeal Fees Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Payment By Appellant Did Not Waive Appeal Rights; Trial Court Implicitly Extended Fee Motion Filing Deadline Due To Docketing Issues. In Skytte v. Skytte, Case No. G064930 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2026) (unpublished), a probate dispute among certain family members may be approaching a close after an award of appellate attorney’s fees of

Appealability, Probate, Sanctions: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Attorney Fee and Sanctions Orders, But The 2/1 DCA Reversed Them On Appeal When Plaintiff Appealed Trial Court’s Denial Of His Motion To Vacate

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

Defendant Lacked Standing For The Initial Fee Motion It Brought – Nullifying The Order Granting The Motion And Each Subsequent Order Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Comply With Void Initial Fee Order After being fired by Plaintiff trustee, Defendant law firm successfully brought a motion for fees under Probate Code § 17200. When trustee failed

Scroll to Top