Cases: Probate

Marc And Mike’s Top Twenty Decisions For 2009

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Social Security, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Part 1 of 2: First Ten Grouping—Nos. 11-20.      As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of the decision. Rather, we try to survey decisions of interest in different

Probate: Another Holiday Two-Fer

Cases: Probate

Only One-Third in Extraordinary Compensation Granted to Attorney Under Probate Code Section 10811.      Attorney for personal estate representatives was only awarded $20,912.50 out of a requested $62,737.50 in extraordinary compensation under Probate Code section 10811(a), which allows for such an award “in an amount the court determines is just and reasonable.” Unhappy, he appealed

Probate: A Two-Fer From The Fourth District, Division Two

Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

  Court of Appeal Examines Various Provisions on Awarding Probate Fees and on Having Trust Pay the Fee Awards.      In two somewhat companion cases, the Fourth District, Division 2 has done a nice job of examining various Probate Code statutes relating to the award of attorney’s fees and where they should be paid from.

Probate: Probate Courts Can Award Fees Against Losing Beneficiaries’ Future Trust Distributions When Their Actions Found To Be In Bad Faith

Cases: Costs, Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Fifth District, in Published Decision, Supports Broad Equitable Powers of Probate Courts.      Probate contests are often donnybrooks between different beneficiaries or relatives. This next one was certainly that. However, the losing minority beneficiaries caused the trustee to expend lots of attorney’s fees, which were recouped when the probate court ruled they could be obtained

Probate: Attorneys For Trustee Erroneously Denied Fees Based On Incorrect Interpretation of Probate Code Sections 18000-18005 and 15684

Cases: Probate

Second District, Division 8 Reverses Probate Court’s Denial of Fees.      In Rutter Hobbs & Davidoff Inc. v. Bessemer Trust Co. of Calif., N.A., Case No. B209835 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 24, 2009) (unpublished), a probate judge denied trustee’s attorneys petitions for payment of attorney’s fees and costs based on their representation of the

Probate: Trustee Winning Jury Trial On Trust Breach Claims But Losing Subsequent Equitable Trial Was Wrongly Denied Fees Because Jury Resolutions Were Binding

Cases: Probate

First District, Division 4 Clarifies Legal/Equitable Issue Interplay in a Mixed Action.      Trustee was sued for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust in an action alleging that the trustee favored one beneficiary over the others in trust assets distributions. Certain legal issues were bifurcated for the jury, and certain equitable claims

In The News and Follow Up On Past Posts Of Interest: Suleman Action And Choi/Great Park Updates . . . Plus, A Look At the New Court of Appeal Building in Santa Ana

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Probate, In The News

Suleman Case—Guardian Ad Litem Appointment Reversed and Superior Court Judge Allows Petersen Suit to Continue.      On May 9, 2009, we reported on an action filed by child rights activist Paul Petersen, who had an objective to get a guardian appointed for the octuplets of Nadya Suleman. We have some updates for you on this

Trustees: You Can Rejoice …. Nonsanction Attorney’s Fees Should Be Awarded Against You In Representative (Not Personal) Capacities

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Probate

  Ninth Circuit So Holds In Arizona Case, But Relies on California Authorities.      All of you trustees out there—whether in a probate or bankruptcy context—can breathe a little easier given the next holding from a recent Ninth Circuit case. Although involving Arizona substantive law, the Court of Appeals relied on analogous California authority so

Scroll to Top