Trustee Was Not Being Pursued In His Personal Capacity. The lesson from Secrest v. Vaughn, Case No. D066702 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 9, 2015) (unpublished) is clear: how a settlement agreement fees clause is worded and who the parties are in this agreement are crucial in determining whether there is fee entitlement […]
Not Pretty Facts At All ….. But Surcharge Sustained. Conservatorship of Moore, Case No. B253538 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 30, 2015) began in a not so pretty way, not involving particularly pretty facts: “Retained counsel for an elderly person suffering from dementia must safeguard the well-being of the person and his or
Chang v. Chang, Case No. G049309 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2015) (Unpublished; Ikola, J.).—Probate. In this and a companion appeal, the appellate court cut some surcharges to the trustee of about $345,000. Because of this companion ruling, the appellate court sent back a $187,900 fee award against trustee and in favor
Section 998 Inapplicable In Probate Proceeding. In a dispute involving the reformation of the terms of a “tontine” or survivalist partnership agreement, a probate estate was denied “costs-of-proof” attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 and had stricken its memorandum seeking post-remand costs based on Code of Civil Procedure section 998
Probate Code Section 1304 Makes These Orders Immediately Appealable, Not Interlocutory Orders Appealable From A Final Judgment. For probate practitioners, Gonzalez v. Thomas, Case No. B250492 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 5, 2015) (unpublished) is a good refresher course on appeal deadlines for Probate Code cases involving the “fixing” of attorney fee compensation.
Beneficiary Did Not Meet Burden Of Proof Under Probate Code Section 17211(b). An attorney was both the sole trustee and one of two beneficiaries of deceased father’s trust estate, with the other beneficiary being his sister. The two got involved in protracted probate litigation and appeals culminating in these results: (1) attorney’s forgiveness
Matter Reversed and Remanded to Determine Value of Attorney’s Lien in Trust. Novak v. Kay, Case No. B256889 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 28, 2015) (published) involved an attorney with broad contractual attorney’s fees language in a retainer letter with a client who died but who was determined to be a pretermitted spouse
Lower Court’s Factual Findings Below Buttressed Affirmance. Beneficiaries objecting to trustees’ accountings need to make sure their objections are reasonable and not inspired by bad faith. If not, you face having to bear the exposure of trustees’ attorney’s fees in defending against such objections. (Prob. Code, § 17211; Uzyel v. Kadsha, 188 Cal.App.4th
Equitable Powers of Probate Court Provided the Fee Entitlement Ground. In Zankich v. Zuckerman, Case No. B247274 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 5, 2014) (unpublished), a petition seeking forfeiture and surcharge was filed by one daughter beneficiary against the trust distribution interests of her sibling beneficiaries, all involving deceased mother’s trust and alleging
Niece Not Entitled to Common Fund Recovery, However Maybe Indirect Recovery Appropriate Under Probate Code Section 2642, But That Section Was Never Raised. Conservatorship of Mazzocco, Case No. E057485 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished) involved some dueling conservatorship petitions for a consevatee having millions in assets even though he had
