Mahan v. Ghiorso

California Court of Appeal Sep 26, 1966 No. Civ. No. 22948Published

Before: Salsman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an administratrix is entitled to statutory fees based on the full sale price of estate property when she has received and accounted for the entire proceeds, regardless of subsequent liens. Furthermore, the court held that heirs are not entitled to attorney's fees for challenging claims against an estate absent proof that their specific intervention directly resulted in a reduction of those claims.

Issues

Whether statutory fees for an administratrix and her attorneys should be computed on the gross sale price of property or the net value after liens.
Whether heirs are entitled to attorney's fees for services rendered in resisting claims against the estate in the absence of evidence that their efforts reduced the claims.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“respondent has received and “accounted for” the entire $41,000 and hence both she and her attorneys are entitled to commissions and fees on the full amount of the funds passing through her hands.”

“it is a claimant’s burden to show that his intervention effected a reduction in a claim against the estate, and that in the absence of his services the disputed claim would have been allowed in a greater amount”

SALSMAN, J. This is an appeal from a decree settling the final account and approving the report of Lena Mahan, administratrix of the estate of Paul Roscelli and ordering distribution of the estate property. Appellants contend the probate court erred in two respects, first, in computing the statutory [189]fees of the administratrix upon the gross value of the estate, rather than upon gross value less certain liens upon decedent’s real estate, and second, in denying appellants’ petition for an allowance of attorneys’ fees. We find no merit in either contention, and therefore affirm the decree and order of the probate court.

Paul Roscelli owned 33 acres of land in Santa Cruz County. In 1958 the superior court of that county appointed Mary Roscelli conservator of Paul’s estate. In August 1962 Mary made claim against the estate for $29,382.70 for services rendered. She asked the court that this sum be fixed and imposed as a lien upon Paul’s property. Appellants, who are 6 of 14 heirs of Paul, objected. A hearing was had upon Mary’s claim, in which appellants and their attorneys participated. We do not have in our record a copy of the order made by the court pursuant to Mary’s petition, but appellants allege in their petition for attorneys’ fees filed in the probate court, that the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County “declined to then impose a lien upon eonservatee’s real estate,” and ordered Mary to file an accounting.

Paul Roscelli died in June 1963. Probate proceedings were begun in Monterey County. Respondent Lena Mahan was appointed administratrix of Paul’s estate.

Mary Roscelli, conservator of Paul’s estate, died in October 1963. Emilia Haven was appointed executrix of her estate.

In December 1963 respondent Lena Mahan, administratrix of Paul’s estate, sold his real property for the sum of $41,000. Her sale was reported to the probate court in Monterey County and was duly confirmed.

In September 1964 Emilia Haven, as executrix of the estate of Mary, filed a final account on behalf of Mary in the conservatorship proceedings, together with a petition for fees and costs and a request that the sum of $36,585 be declared a lien upon Paul’s property. Appellants and their attorneys again objected, as they had objected to the original claim filed by Mary. After a hearing, the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County found that the sum of $18,839.21 was due the estate of Mary, and imposed this amount (together with certain other claims made against Paul’s estate) as a lien upon Paul’s real property. The court’s settlement of Emilia Haven’s account filed on behalf of Mary, and the allowance (in part at least) of Mary’s claim, appears to have terminated the conservatorship proceedings.

Mahan v. Ghiorso

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief