Fulop

Fulop v. Grissom

Good Law
160 Cal. Rptr. 402·1979 Cal. App. LEXIS 2359·99 Cal. App. 3d 605
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 11, 1979Civ. No. 56037California3,093 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ashby, J.

*609 Opinion

Appellants Irwin Fulop and Esther Handmaker appeal from that portion of an order settling the first account current of the trustee of the estate of Clarence F. Ott, deceased, which denies appellants’ petition for compensation of attorneys.

Appellant Fulop is an attorney licensed to practice law in California. Appellant Esther Handmaker is the widow of Herman Handmaker, who was an attorney licensed to practice law in Kentucky. It is agreed she has succeeded to his interest in the attorney compensation agreement disputed in this case. Respondents Charles Manteuffel and David Manteuffel are grandchildren of the decedent, Clarence F. Ott. Their mother, Ruby Florence Ott Manteuffel (Ruby), was one of decedent’s three daughters.

Decedent’s will and codicil thereto were offered for probate in Los Angeles in January 1953. The will left $500 each to Ruby and another of decedent’s daughters, Edith Ott Meixner (Edith). The will left substantially the balance of the estate to decedent’s widow, Lucy Ott, for her life, with the remainder to decedent’s third daughter, Mary Blanche Ott Hawkins, and to her then minor children, Elizabeth Hawkins and Charlotte Hawkins. The will…

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.