$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
Fiduciary Duty Breaches Do Not Necessarily Preclude Fee Recovery Altogether. The Fourth District, Division 1 reinforces that attorney’s fees awards in probate matters are governed by statute but guided by equitable considerations. In Kunit v. Kingston, Case No. D056103 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 23, 2010) (unpublished), trustee was removed after having been
Above: Wrapping It Up. As we wish all readers the happiest of Holidays, we now present our top 20 published decisions from California appellate courts or the Ninth Circuit. This list is not meant to slight other important decisions in certain areas, but these are the ones that “rose to the top” from
Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms Sizable Extraordinary Fee Award Under Abuse of Discretion Standard. Acting Presiding Justice O’Leary, in the 3-0 unpublished decision in Estate of Fernandez, Case No. G041272 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 7, 2010) (unpublished), has a nice discussion of the difference between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” compensation in the probate area
Second District, Division 2 Determines Trust Beneficial Interest Is Not Part of Conservatee’s Estate. In Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of George, Case No. B221327 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 27, 2010) (unpublished), the trial court ordered fees for a conservator, County Counsel (counsel for guardian), and Public Defender (counsel for conservatee) paid
