Estate of Linnick

Good Law
171 Cal. App. 3d 752·217 Cal. Rptr. 552
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 27, 1985B006555California5,651 words

Opinion

Opinion

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, George E. Stephens, Jr., Peter K. Rosen and Jeffrey B. Valle for Objector and Respondent.

OPINION

JOHNSON, J.

The appellant appeals from an order of the probate court denying its petition for extraordinary attorney's fees. The central issues on appeal are whether the respondent's petition in the underlying action to determine title to contested property was properly filed pursuant to Probate Code section 615 and whether the petition could have been brought pursuant to Probate Code section 851.5 even though the decedent had no claim to the property at the time of his death. Because we conclude the petition was improperly filed pursuant to Probate Code section 615 and could not have been brought pursuant to Probate Code section 851.5, we reverse the court's decision and order the court to refrain from taking any further action in this matter.

In 1977, the decedent, Albert Linnick, an attorney, entered into a contingent fee contract with Bankers Life Insurance Company (Bankers Life) to represent its interest in the sale of land owned by the company. Under this contract, Linnick's fee was to be based on the sale price received for the property.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.