Eddy

Eddy v. Fields

Good Law
121 Cal. App. 4th 1543·18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 487
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 21, 2004B167817California2,379 words

Opinion

Opinion

Coffee, J.

Appellant William E. Fields is an attorney who was retained by two trustees of an inter vivos trust. A successor trustee petitioned the probate court to set the amount of reasonable fees for appellant’s services at zero and to obtain certain legal documents notwithstanding appellant’s claim of work product privilege. The court granted the petition to set the fees at zero and ordered production of the documents. We modify the fee order, but otherwise affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jack P. Eddy established a revocable inter vivos trust in 1987, naming himself as the initial trustee. Among the several beneficiaries were his daughter-in-law Doris L. Eddy, his sister Bernice J. Smith and his granddaughter Jacqueline D. Eddy. Doris and Bernice were designated as successor cotrustees in the event of Jack’s death. Jack died on November 2, 1996, when the trust was valued at over $3.6 million. Doris and Bernice were appointed as cotrustees and hired appellant and Attorney James Merzon to assist them in legal matters concerning the trust. The exact structure of this representation is unclear. It appears from the record that Merzon may have represented Bernice only, but that…

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.