Harpole

Harpole v. Conrad N. Hilton Foundation

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 378·44 Cal. App. 4th 890·52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 491·96 Daily Journal DAR 4720·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2835
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 23, 1996No. B084575California12,918 words

Opinion

Lead 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 *895 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 additional compensation for those unusual services—so-called “extraordinary” services. 5 Sections 10801 (as to personal representatives) and 10811 (as to their attorneys) provide that the probate court “may allow additional compensation for extraordinary services . . . in an amount the court determines…

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.