Neither the Conditions of the Trust Nor Fee-Shifting Statute Were Met Here. In our March 24, 2010 post, we discussed the fee-shifting parameters of Probate Code section 17211(b) in the context of Leader v. Cords, 182 Cal.App.4th 1588 (2010). Leader has been discussed in other posts, namely, our March 24, 2010 post on Leach […]
Retainer Agreement, Even If Void, Could Be Considered in Deciding upon Fee Award. Here is an interesting one from our local Santa Ana court in the “Probate” category. Lanzone v. Santilli, Case No. G043586 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 14, 2011) (unpublished) involved a situation where an attorney helped garner an elderly
Second District, Division 3 Upholds Fee Award In Second Appeal. In our January 8, 2010 post, we explored the appeal in Conservatorship of Davis, where the Second District, Division 3 held that Probate Code section 1470(c) did authorize the probate court to order that attorney’s fees for work by an appointed Probate Volunteer
Probate Case Has Nice Summary of Principles of Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel The Court of Appeals early on telegraphed the train wreck that is this case with the understated observation, “The relationship between the siblings was not optimal.” Estate of Redfield, Case No. B216190 (2nd Dist. Div. 3 4/5/11) (certified for publication).
$9,000 Attorney’s Fees Award Charged Against Probate Distribution to Losing Party. Probate is certainly an equitably driven area, as the next case shows in how one losing party was denied a fee award and another party was awarded fees to be charged against losing party’s next probate estate distribution. In Estate of Jagar,
Wow, March 22 was a busy, busy day for attorney’s fees topics in both state and federal courts. Here come a lot of posts, starting with our category “Probate.” Probate Code section 11704(b) at Issue in Estate of Bartsch, Case No. A126925 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 22, 2011) (certified for publication).
$101,178.62 in Attorney Work Must Be Reconsidered For Beneficial Result. In the past, we have discussed many cases which hold that billing records must be presented to the court (as well as the trustee) when an attorney is seeking reimbursement for probate court litigation work. This stems from the trial court’s “special responsibility” to
Fourth District, Division 2 Saw No Basis For Fee Reduction. Although abuse of discretion is the guiding standard for fee amount reductions, it will not prevail where the record showed there was a lot of work, the fees were not out of proportion to trust assets, and no reason for the reduction was set
No Res Judicata Impact From Prior Fee Denial; Daily Substantiation Requirements Do Not Govern Probate Fee Awards. This post will definitely interest probate practitioners. Aside from the fact that it involves a fairly substantial “extraordinary fee” award, it also demonstrates that the appellate courts will be demanding on application of res judicata principles and
$7,500 Fee Award Out of Requested $36,000 In Fees Sustained On Appeal. Here is one showing how lower courts will balance the interests of trustees and trust remainder beneficiaries when crafting fee awards. (Boy, these terms take us back to law school probate classes, don’t they?) In Clare v. MacCarley, Case No. B223107
