Motion to Compel
an estate worth over $1.3 million, thus are not extraordinary, and most are not even legal in nature (i.e. they did not require the skill/training of a lawyer). Selling a home is not extraordinary legal work for which extraordinary fees attach, especially when a real estate broker is paid for doing so. The supplement does not explain how the services provided during the sale of a home, WHILE EMPLOYING A REAL ESTATE AGENT, were legal in nature and extraordinary.
As stated in the previous notes: While it is arguably unfair for the real estate agents to make more in fees for selling a home than for the attorney administering the estate, the legislature already took such equities into consideration when enacting the statutory fee schedule. The sale of real property is an ordinary and usual occurrence in the administration of a decedent's estate, thus does not automatically warrant extraordinary fees. Counsel here showed no circumstances during the sale of real property that required the estate to incur "legal services" not normally needed during the sale and escrow process. Thus, the high value of real estate in this state generates a statutory fee award that is usually sufficient to compensate the personal representative and the attorney. This is especially true when a real estate agent is used to effectuate the sale.
The standard courts use is " legal services in connection with the sale of property held in the estate." (CRC, Rule 7.703(c)(1).) The policy behind statutory fee awards includes strong consideration of the complication of larger estates than that of smaller estates. (In re Buchman's Estate (1955) 138 Cal.App.2d 228, 235. See also Estate of Getty (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 455 [discussing in dicta that larger statutory compensation can be sufficient to cover unexpected intricacies in estate administration]; and Estate of Hilton (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 890, 912-16 [citing In re Walker's Estate (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 792, 795] for the proposition that probate courts can disallow all extraordinary fees claims if they find statutory compensation sufficient, keeping in mind the legislature's policy of subsidizing fees in more complicated estates with those easily earned in less complicated estate ["The Legislature merely determined, in substance, that any under-compensation involved in handling small estates would be equitably adjusted in the long run by overcompensation in handling larger estates."].)
For the reasons stated above, the extraordinary fees requested in this case are not just or reasonable. Thus, it is recommended the Court deny the entire request for extraordinary fees.
Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334
Tentative Ruling: Brendan Potyondy vs Pacific Coast Energy Company LP Tentative Ruling: Brendan Potyondy vs Pacific Coast Energy Company LP Case Number
Case Type Unlimited Wrongful Termination (36) Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/12/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Compel Tentative Ruling /media/2115
Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Nicolas Filemon Meza Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Nicolas Filemon Meza
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”