Fourth District, Division 1 So Holds in Unpublished Decision. It is probably not a good idea to challenge the fees of a court-appointed attorney in a contentious conservatorship battle. The attorney is usually having to sort out conflicting heat from different sides, so that counsel’s application for fees will usually be granted unless […]
First District, Division 1 Makes the Point for Specific Substantiation in Recent Unpublished Decision. Probate law requires more specific substantiation to justify trust payments of attorney’s fees than is required in civil litigation—although our recent posts have still lobbied that time sheets and detailed breakdowns are advisable no matter what the context. The need
Second District, Division 8 Affirms Fee Award to Attorney for Conservatee. Conservatorships frequently happen to be sad cases, involving sad facts, litigious factions, and fee awards bitterly contested by relatives. This next case is no exception to the rule. In Conservatorship of Gilly, Case No. B201971 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 30, 2009)
Fourth District, Division 1 Affirms Fees and Sanctions Awarded in Long Running Battle Between Trust Beneficiaries. Probate proceedings bring out all the nuances of human beings, in what frequently boils down to a struggle over trust or estate assets between disgruntled family members. However, California does authorize awards of attorney’s fees to professionals that
Second District, Division 5 Sustains Award Based on Broad Fees Clause in Settlement Agreement and Confirms 60 Day Fee Deadline Does Not Apply in Probate Litigation Matters. Most of the time in probate matters, attorney’s fees are awarded for services to an estate. (Estate of Trynin, 47 Cal.2d 265, 272-273; see also cases
Second District, Division 6’s Holding Designed to Promote Trust Administration by Trustees. Probate practitioners, pay attention—we have a recent unpublished case that should be of interest in your area of expertise. In Kasperbauer v. Fairfield, Case No. B200076 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 26, 2009) (unpublished), trust beneficiaries obtained orders substituting a
Ms. Peck Reviews Stroud, Shimko, Miller, and Strong Decisions. Ellen R. Peck, a former State Bar Court judge and Encino solo practitioner, has written a fine article in the January 2009 edition of the California Bar Journal with astute tips of upfront, prophylactic actions that can be taken for successfully recovering fees in
Case One Rejects Adoption of Lodestar Methodology For Probate Cases; Case Two Determines that Fee Request for Successful Defense of Will Contest Must Be First Directed to the Trial Court Rather than the Appellate Tribunal. Now we have two cases of interest to probate and estate practitioners. The first case is Conservatorship of
Probate Code sections 17211(b) and 16061.9(b) Are Proper Statutory Predicates For Fee Awards. Attorney’s fees awards in probate actions must have a statutory basis. (Estate of Trynan, 49 Cal.3d 868, 874 (1989). Two bases for awards were at issue in the next case we discuss. In Matthews
First District, Division One Discusses This Equitable Doctrine. In our September 16, 2008 post, we discussed Estate of Daley, which summarized the normal compensation principles applicable in probate proceedings. Usually, the court awards compensation as either “ordinary” or “extraordinary” in categorical nature. “Extraordinary compensation” includes attorney’s fees that the probate court,
