Broad Equitable Powers Extend To Making Trust Liable; Probate Code Section 17211(b) Exception Not Relied On By Trial Court, Mandating Reversal of Fee Award. After a prior remand from an earlier appellate decision, a trial court finally adjudicated the rights of two former co-habitants (male and female) having a Marvin agreement to own […]
Appellate Court Affirmed Lower Court’s Denial of Fee Request. In Estate of Bilafer, Case Nos. A135675 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 20, 2013) (unpublished), a petitioner beneficiary under some family trusts appealed the denial of fees after other beneficiaries dismissed an order to show cause re contempt involving performance under a
Record Supported Probate Court’s Reduction, With That Award Being 25% Higher Than Probate Examiner Recommendation. Attorneys rendering services to a conservator can seek compensation from the court under Probate Code section 2640, with the ultimate fixing of the fee award residing in the discretion of the probate court. In Conservatorship of Rawls,
Because Contingency Related to Work for Beneficiaries Apart from Estate Benefits, No Compliance Necessary With Probate Code Court Approval Requirements. Okay, readers, here is an interesting cross-over case involving probate, retainer agreements, and contingency awards. The case is Sare v. Shad, Case No. C069573 (3d Dist. July 31, 2013) (unpublished). In this
We have discussed before Probate Code section 17211(b), which allows a beneficiary the ability to collect attorney’s fees and costs in a situation where the lower court determines that a trustee contested an accounting challenge petition without reasonable basis–with the statute being guided by an objectively reasonable standard akin to that utilized in
Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion In Finding Trust Liable For 100% of Referee’s Fees. Probate Code section 2642(b) and California Rules of Court, rule 7.702 allow attorneys who render legal services to a guardian or estate (or both) to file a petition for extraordinary compensation, if certain substantiation is met and the
However, Matter Remanded Because His Estimate of Fees Did Not Satisfy Percentage of Benefit or Lodestar Analyses. The appellate court in Johnson v. Johnson, Case No. B242770 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 31, 2013) (unpublished) agreed that grandson was entitled to recoup his attorney’s fees under a common fund theory when he successfully
Trust Instrument Trumped General Equitable Probate Code Sections. In Thorpe v. Reed, Case No. H037330 (6th Dist. Dec. 13, 2012) (published), plaintiff was a successor trustee under a trust instrument prohibiting compensation to a successor trustee. Plaintiff sought to recover $108,771.17 from the estate for trustee and trustee’s attorney’s fees. The court awarded
Although one living partner in a joint venture with a deceased partner lost a probate cross-petition battle regarding distribution of shares from the joint venture, living/nonprevailing partner was successful in resisting the subsequent costs award in favor of the prevailing parties. Reason? It was untimely filed. As explained in Friedman v.
Trap for the Unwary: Order Denying a Motion for Reconsideration Is Not An Appealable Order. The administrator of an estate requested authorization to pay his attorney for both ordinary and extraordinary services to the estate. The trial court granted these requests in a formal order. One of the relatives of the decedent filed
