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Rutter Hobbs & Davidoff Inc. v. Bessemer Trust Co. of Calif., N.A., Case No. B209835 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 24, 2009) (unpublished), a probate judge denied trustee’s attorneys petitions for payment of attorney’s fees and costs based on their representation of the […]
First District, Division 1 Sees No Abuse of Discretion in Fee Awards During an Endless Probate Proceeding. The next case illustrates how a litigant may bring too many appeals such that the appellate court grows weary of the endless disputes, even though the court does its job to review a fees award through neutral
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
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
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
Fourth District, Division 1 So Holds in Unpublished Decision.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First District, Division 1 Makes the Point for Specific Substantiation in Recent Unpublished Decision.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
