Cases: Probate

Appealability, Probate: Plaintiff’s Appeal Of Trial Court’s Interim Order Allowing Defendant Trustee Access To Trust Funds For Defense Is Rendered Moot When Trial Court Issues New Order Effectively Granting Same Relief As Appealed Order

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Probate

Unique Provision Of The Probate Code Provided An End Run Around The Stay Created When Plaintiff Appealed And Posted A Bond.             Probate Code § 1310(b) provides that, “for the purpose of preventing injury or loss to a person or property, the trial court may direct the exercise of the powers of the fiduciary . […]

Probate: Around $300,000 In Attorney’s Fees/Costs Incurred By Petitioner In Conservatorship Proceeding Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Probate

Conservatorship Petition Was Successful And In Mother’s Best Interests.             For those of you who have read our posts under the category “Probate,” you hopefully discerned that probate court is a court of equity, and that many of the fee decisions are guided by equitable principles.  The result in Conservatorship of Dubro, Case No. A157185

Probate: Probate Court’s Order For Attorneys Helping Resolving Ownership Claims And Rendering Tax Advice Properly Awarded

Cases: Probate

These Were Extraordinary Compensation Or Fees Properly Awarded.             In Estate of Lund, Case No. A156410 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 3, 2020) (unpublished), a decedent’s son appealed two attorney’s fees awards which were rendered in a probate matter.  The first concerned an attorney’s efforts to resolve ownership claims by preparing a Probate Code section

Probate, Request For Admissions, Sanctions: More Than $1.8 Million In CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Went POOF! On Appeal, But RFA “Cost Of Proof” Sanctions Of Over $1 Million Stuck On Appeal

Cases: Probate, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Sanctions

128.5 Sanctions Went Away Because It Did Not Apply To The Action Datewise, While RFA “Sanctions” Were No Abuse Of Discretion Even Though Substantial In Nature.             First of all, we hope all of our readers are safe—this pandemic has presented unprecedented, bizarre consequences, but hope you are well.  We are happy to report that

Probate: 4/3 DCA Remands For Recalculation/Reduction Of Surcharge Against Personal Representative Removed For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, But Affirms Attorney Fees Award Despite Trial Court’s Erroneously Stated Statutory Basis

Cases: Probate

Personal Representative Repeatedly Failed To Timely File Accurate Inventory & Appraisal and Accountings With The Court, Spent Estate Funds Without Authorization, Showed Hostility Toward Beneficiary, Failed To File Tax Returns, And Failed To Understand The Effect Of The Pour-Over Will Executed By Decedent.             In Karamooz v. Karamooz, Case No. G056897 (4th Dist., Div.

Probate, Section 1717: Attorney’s Fee Award Of $172,885 Affirmed Against Attorney/Law Firm Who Assisted Free-Lance Paralegal In Converting, To Free-Lance Paralegal’s Benefit, The Inheritance Of A Vulnerable, Impoverished, Paraplegic Beneficiary

Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717

The Trial Court Properly Awarded The Fees Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1717 Based On Provisions In The Escrow Agreement Drafted By Attorney/Law Firm Even Though That Agreement Was Determined By The Trial Court To Be Invalid.             The 2/8 DCA described this next case as being “prompted by a sordid chain of events,”

Probate: Case Goes To The 4/3 DCA A Second Time For Trustee’s Attorney Fees With 4/3 DCA Overturning Lower Court’s Ruling To Reduce

Cases: Probate

4/3 DCA Declares The Reduction Undermined And Improperly Limited The Authority Of The Trustee To Pay Attorney Fees And Was An Abuse Of Discretion.             Well, folks, in the famous words of Yogi Berra, “It’s déjà vu all over again.”              In a July 15, 2016 post, we reported on Shelton v. Larson, and

Probate: Beneficiary Presumed To Be Missing Or Deceased Surfaces In Time To Unsuccessfully Object To Settlement Of Trust And Approval Of $295,000 In Attorney Fees To Trustee

Cases: Probate

Trustee’s Efforts Were Reasonable And Appropriate For The Benefit Of The Trust And Resulted In Restoration Of Beneficiary’s Trust Benefits.             Father of two sons was trustee to the trust established in his late wife’s name in Polonsky v. Polonsky, Case Nos. B290480 and B293958 (2d Dist., Div. 3 November 22, 2019) (unpublished).  The trust

Probate: No Abuse Of Discretion In Lower Court’s Denial Of Probate Code § 2642 Petition For Attorney Fees Of $64,398.75 And $4,145.31 Costs To Law Firm Representing Co-Guardians Of Minor’s Estate

Cases: Probate

Law Firm Failed To Cease Work As Instructed By One Of The Co-Guardians.             Probate Code § 2105(c)(1) requires that “[w]here there are two guardians or conservators, both must concur to exercise a power.”  Unfortunately for the law firm seeking fees in Guardianship of the Estate of L.T., Case No. B288733 (2d Dist., Div.

Scroll to Top