Distribution Allowed, But Subject to Attorney’s Lien. Just to show you that trial and appellate courts do seriously consider attorney’s interests, here is one in the probate context that highlights this in spades. In Middleton v. Roos, Case No. A130329 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 26, 2011) (unpublished), among other issues, executor […]
Equitable Powers Are Broad in Probate Court. Watson v. Watson, Case No. B214891 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 19, 2011) (unpublished) confirms the broad powers granted to probate courts to award attorney’s fees against trustees that take bad faith actions against a trust. Here, trustee conveyed property to himself out of the trust
Having 70% of Settlement Funds Go to Attorney’s Fees Not Digestible. Okay, for all of you probate and conservatorship practitioners, here is an interesting one involving dueling attorney’s fees requests by conservatorship candidates. The winning conservator got his requested fees whacked down by 75%, while the losing conservatorship–who also got a big
Ranting and Raving Does Not Help on Appeal. Although we cannot say that it was definitive, appellant’s ranting and raving below and on appeal certainly did not help him overturn a probate court’s award of fees against his trust account. It didn’t come close. In McBride v. Hall, Case No. H035399 (6th
Conservatee’s Daughter’s Appeals Sadly End Contentious Conservatorship Fee Proceedings. In a bitterly contested conservatorship proceeding, Conservatorship of Gdowski, Case Nos. G043583 & G044070 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 7, 2011) (both unpublished), two appeals resolved awards of attorney’s fees to the lawyers for both conservatee and conservator resulting from conservatee’s daughter’s objections to
They Only Benefitted the Trustee, Not the Trust, Justifying Fee Request Denial. The Second District, Division 6, in Waters v. Conkle, Case No. B225166 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 23, 2011) (unpublished), reminds all of you probate practitioners that extraordinary fees will only be awarded where the attorney’s actions had some benefit for
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).
