Estate of Olivia H Diaz

Case Number

21PR00563

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 07/17/2024 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required. The following must be submitted:

Supplement re: Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing (Form DE-120).  Proof of Service shows service of the Notice of Hearing on Sandra G. Diaz was sent to an address different from the address listed in the Petition for Letters of Administration. Please submit supplement explaining the difference.

Supplement re: Extraordinary Fees.  Payment of extraordinary fees is not guaranteed, and the Court has wide discretion to decide whether to allow extra compensation, even when services of an extraordinary nature are rendered.  (CRC, Rule 7.703(a). See also In re Fulcher's Estate (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 710, 718 [“The general rule is that the probate court has a large discretion in the allowance of fees for extraordinary services rendered on behalf of the estate.”)  “[T]he burden of proving the necessity for the services is on the representative claiming extraordinary fees for himself and his attorney.”  (Ibid.)

IN THIS CASE, Mr. Attala requests extraordinary fees for what his billing statements reveal to be focused on two primary tasks 1) saving the home from foreclosure, and 2) selling the home.  According to the Declaration filed by Mr. Attala, a total of 17.9 hours was spent on these two tasks, but only 4.35 was spent on the foreclosure task.

Extraordinary fees re: foreclosure should be denied

While saving the home from foreclosure could involve extensive legal work and skill, Mr. Attala’s billing statements show no such skill was required in this case. The billing statements plainly reveal all 4.35 hours spent on this task were in communication with the mortgage company to obtain an extension of time for the estate to sell the home.  This is not extraordinary, does not involve legal skill above skill a layperson acting as personal representative would be expected to perform, and is reasonably subsumed within the statutory fee of $11,931.92, which is already inflated based on the value of the estate to the world (i.e. $446,596), as opposed to the actual value of the estate to the heirs (i.e. $104,242.73 after all bills paid).  Stated a different way, Mr. Attala is already receiving more than adequate compensation based on an estate of $446,596, when that number upon which his fee was based was inflated by the lien on the real property.

Extraordinary fees re: real property sale should be denied, unless supplement shows Mr. Attala brokered the sale of the real property

Upon review of all billing entries, it does not appear any entry in the billing statements involved legal work (or any work for that matter) involved in selling the real property. 

The sale of real property is an ordinary and usual occurrence in the administration of a decedent’s estate, thus does not automatically warrant extraordinary fees.  Unless circumstances during the sale of real property require the estate to incur “legal services” not normally needed during the sale and escrow process, the high value of real estate in this state generates a statutory fee award that is usually sufficient to compensate the personal representative and the attorney.  This is especially true when a real estate agent is used to effectuate the sale. The standard courts use is “legal services in connection with the sale of property held in the estate.” (CRC, Rule 7.703(c)(1).)

For example, the Court may consider that the statutory fee calculated on an estate where the decedent's personal residence that was sold for $1 million (the statutory fee would be $21,150) is reasonable compensation, because no “legal services” were required to effectuate the sale of the property, other than brief contract review and associated tasks, and the policy behind statutory fee awards includes strong consideration of the complication of larger estates than that of smaller estates.  (In re Buchman's Estate (1955) 138 Cal.App.2d 228, 235. See also Estate of Getty (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 455 [discussing in dicta that massive statutory compensation can be sufficient to cover unexpected intricacies in estate administration]; and Estate of Hilton (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 890, 912-16 [citing In re Walker's Estate (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 792, 795] for the proposition that probate courts can disallow all extraordinary fees claims if they find statutory compensation sufficient, keeping in mind the legislature’s policy of subsidizing fees in more complicated estates with those easily earned in less complicated estate [“The Legislature merely determined, in substance, that any undercompensation involved in handling small estates would be equitably adjusted in the long run by overcompensation in handling larger estates.”].)

HOWEVER, the escrow statement reveals that the estate did not incur a commission for use of a realtor in the sale of the property (by either buyer or seller).  If Mr. Attala brokered the sale on his own, the requested fees would be more that justified, since he would have saved the estate thousands of dollars in commissions to a broker.  Supplement is required to verify brokerage of the sale.

Proposed Order.  A proposed order must be submitted using Local Form SC-6029 with relief that matches that requested in the petition. (Local Rule 1724(b), subd.(d).)  Order must list every beneficiary and detail the shares to each, and must expressly state limitations or conditions on distribution.  (Prob. Code, § 11603.)  If whereabouts of a distributee are unknown, the Proposed Order must provide for alternate distributes, and detail the share to which they are entitled per PC § 11603(c). No such document was filed with the court.

If the documents curing these deficiencies are not processed by 8:00 a.m. on July 15, 2024, it is recommended that the matter be continued to a date to be set by the Court at the hearing, unless the party appears and requests a different date, or submits a request for a different continuance date prior to the hearing. (Local Rule 1721(c)(2)(A-B).)  If the matter is continued, documents must be submitted at least 10 days prior to the new hearing date to be considered.

 

Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the “Filing Description” field provided by the electronic service provider. That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field – BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ).

Appearances:

The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference.

Meeting ID: 161 956 1423

Passcode: 137305