Crawford

Crawford v. Kingsbury

Good Law
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 2215·221 Cal. App. 2d 792·34 Cal. Rptr. 832
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 1, 1963Civ. No. 21060California1,385 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Salsman, J.

Appellants, the executor and attorney, appeal from the probate court’s order which denies them compensation for extraordinary services rendered during the administration of the estate of Eella Adair Walker. Two issues are presented, first, when services of the type listed in Probate Code section 902 are rendered, has the court discretion to deny extra compensation, and second, did the court here abuse its discretion in denying compensation for extraordinary services ?

*794 In her will the decedent named her attorney, Hilary H. Crawford, as executor. The executor employed his son, Hilary H. Crawford, Jr. as his attorney in matters relating to the administration of the estate. Hilary H. Crawford and Hilary H. Crawford, Jr. practice law, and share the same offices. There is no showing that any partnership exists between them, however, and it is expressly stated in their briefs that no partnership does in fact exist, and that in these proceedings no part of the fee of either is shared by the other.

The value of decedent’s estate, for the purposes of computing the ordinary fees due appellants, amounted to $313,719.98, and the ordinary statutory fee for each was $6,085.80. The estate…

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.