Estate of Hilton

Good Law
44 Cal. App. 4th 890·52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 491
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 23, 1996B084575California13,674 words

Opinion

Opinion

Loeb & Loeb, Andrew S. Garb, David C. Nelson, Oberstein, Doniger, Fetter, Kibre & Horwitz, Oberstein, Kibre & Horwitz and Henry Pollard for Objector and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, and Chester H. Horn, Deputy Attorney General, for Objector and Respondent.

OPINION

GOLD, J. [*]

In proceedings for the probate of a decedent's estate in California, the compensation of the personal representative [1] and the compensation of the personal representative's attorney [2] are each fixed through the use of two quite different approaches. To begin with, in every case the personal representative and his or her attorney are entitled to compensation based upon a sliding scale of percentages of the value of the estate accounted for. [3] (Prob. Code, §§ 10800, 10810.) [4] Because this compensation is intended as payment for the services which are involved in substantially every probate case, it is commonly known as "statutory" or "ordinary" compensation or as compensation for "statutory" or "ordinary" services. The second approach provides for compensation for services which are not involved in the typical probate case, and that approach authorizes the court to allow…

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.