Barrett v. Mitchell

California Supreme Court Oct 8, 1898 No. Sac. No. 478Published

Before: Henshaw, McFarland

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an administratrix is entitled to reimbursement for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the legitimate preservation of the estate, including necessary legal services, but that the probate court retains discretion to determine the reasonableness of such expenditures. Upon rehearing, the court specifically found that expenses for an attorney's travel and services in successfully appealing an erroneous order of sale were necessary and should have been allowed.

Issues

Whether an administratrix is entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred prior to her appointment.
Whether an administratrix may charge the estate for the fees of multiple attorneys when one is sufficient.
Whether expenses incurred by an administratrix in unsuccessfully contesting her own removal are chargeable to the estate.
Whether the probate court abused its discretion in limiting attorney fees and rejecting certain travel expenses.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The administratrix is entitled to her traveling expenses necessarily incurred in her legitimate efforts to preserve the estate, and properly incurred in distributing its assets.”

“It is their duty, as it is the duty of all trustees, to exercise the highest diligence and to limit the expenditures with a wise prudence and economy.”

“The reversal of the order of sale entirely justifies the appeal and every step taken in its prosecution”

Synopsis

Estates of Deceased Persons—Settlement of Accounts of Administratrix—Preliminary Expenses.—An administratrix is not entitled to charge against the estate of the decedent her expenses incurred in traveling when taking steps to apply for letters of administration, or in attending the hearing of a contest over letters of administration.

Id.—Items Allowed and Inadvertently Omitted.—Items allowed by the court in its findings, but inadvertently omitted from the order settling the accounts of the administratrix, should be corrected by calling the attention of the court to the oversight, and are not the subject of appeal prior to an application for such correction by the superior court.

Id.—Traveling Expenses—Dissuasion from Sale of Mining Property.—An administratrix is entitled to traveling expenses necessarily incurred in legitimate efforts to preserve the estate; but an order rejecting an item for her traveling expenses to dissuade an heir at law from petitioning for the sale of mining property, will not be disturbed, except upon a clear showing that the moneys were thus necessarily and properly expended.

Id.—Appeal from Order of Sale—Attorney’s Traveling Expenses.— Where the local attorney representing an administratrix in the settlement of the estate was not in favor of appealing from an erroneous order of sale of real estate, and the administratrix employed another attorney to take an appeal therefrom, the reversal of the order justifies the appeal and every step taken in its prosecution; and the proper traveling expenses of the attorney thus employed, to enable him Intelligently and properly to take and prosecute the appeal, should be allowed in addition to his fees in the settlement of the accounts of the administratrix.

Id.—Allowance of Attorneys’ Fees—Discretion of Superior Court.—■ The allowances for attorneys’ fees in the settlement of the accounts of the administratrix are in the discretion of the superior court, and cannot be disturbed upon appeal, where it cannot be said that the superior court has abused its discretion, though the allowances may seem unusually meager.

Id.—Unnecessary Application for Prohibition.—Items of expenditure made by the administratrix upon an unnecessary and unsuccessful application for a writ of prohibition, which was known to be unnecessary, should be rejected.

Id.—Order of Removal of Administratrix—Expenditures Disallowed.—Expenditures incurred after an order made removing the administratrix, for failure to give additional security required, in contesting the validity of the order, and also items of expenditure incurred in her efforts to procure another undertaking, were properly disallowed,

Opinion — Henshaw

HENSHAW, J. This is the appeal of Maggie G. Barrett from the order settling her final account as administratrix of the estate of Joseph Byrne, deceased.

1. The first rejected item is for $7.70. It represents the railroad fare and expenses of appellant incurred upon a trip from San Francisco to Auburn before she had applied for letters of administration, but when she was taking steps so to do. It was properly rejected. It has been decided that the compensation of an attorney to aid an applicant in securing letters, whether the application be successful or not, is no proper charge against the estate. (Estate of Simmons, 43 Cal. 543.) This item of expense incurred in the same manner stands upon no different plane.

2. For the same reason the rejection of the second item, also for $7.70, for traveling expenses in attending the hearing of the contest over letters of administration, was also proper.

3. This item of $8.35 was allowed by the court in its findings, but by some inadvertence its allowance was not inserted in the order. If the attention of the trial court had been directed to the oversight, it would undoubtedly have been corrected. It [262]should he allowed as of course, hut the circumstances do not justify an appeal, since the administratrix should have first called them to'the attention of the prohate court.

4. The court retired this item of $12.75. It represented the expenses of the administratrix in traveling from San Francisco to Iowa Hill in her effort to dissuade Patrick Byrne, the only heir at law of the deceased residing in the state of California, from petitioning for the sale of a piece of realty belonging to the estate, and called the Irish and Byrne mine. The administratrix was strongly opposed to parting with this property, and Patrick Byrne seems to have as strongly favored its sale. Upon his application a sale was decreed, which decree upon the administratrix’s appeal was set aside by this court as having been based upon an insufficient petition. (Estate of Byrne, 112 Cal. 176.) The administratrix is entitled to her traveling expenses necessarily incurred in her legitimate efforts to preserve the estate, and properly incurred in distributing its assets. But we will not disturb an order rejecting such an item as this, except upon a clear showing that the moneys were thus necessarily and properly expended. Such a showing is not here made.

Barrett v. Mitchell

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Henshaw

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Concurrence — McFarland

AI Brief