Estate of Guadalupe Zubia

Case Number

22PR00109

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 06/17/2025 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

The following must be submitted:

Supplement re: Escrow Statement.  Real property was sold, but no Escrow Statement is on file.  The escrow statement is a requisite filing to satisfy the final report requirements of the Probate Code (Prob. Code, § 10954(c)(1)), and the California Rules of Court (Rule 7.550):

Allegations of all actions taken under IAEA, including:

• sales, purchases, or exchanges of assets (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(2))
• changes in the form of assets (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(3))
• assets on hand (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(4))
• a list of costs of administration, IF reimbursement of administration costs is requested  (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(7))
• a list of the amount of any fees or commissions paid or to be paid (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(8)), and the calculation of such fees or commissions as described in CRC, Rule 7.705(b) (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(9))

The requirements of Rule 7.550(b) mandate an escrow statement for any sale of real property must be submitted in support of the final report.

The following is noted for the Court:

Extraordinary Fees should be reduced. 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.)

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 $495,000 (the statutory fee would be $12,900) is reasonable compensation, because few (if any) “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.”].)

IN THIS CASE, it appears the extraordinary fees were solely incurred due to legal work performed on the sale of real property.  While no agent was employed by the Personal Representative, attorney requesting fees did little more than coordinate the sale of the property and prepare and review sales contracts.  While this saved the estate thousands of dollars in fees that would have been paid to a sales agent, the fees must still be warranted based on the work performed.

In addition to not much legal work being performed on the sale, the rate at which attorney for the Petitioner bills is far higher than the community standard rate of this legal community.  The high rate in this community is $450 per hour for exceptional legal work that required specialized skill. Since there does not appear to be any specialized skill discussed in the petition or supporting exhibits, the standard only appears to apply to very little of the work performed in this case. Thus, the $500 fee requested by Mr. Hall should be reduced to $400 for a more accurate fee award of $7,680.

Inappropriate request to reimburse overhead.  Overhead costs are specifically excluded from reimbursement requests in fee petitions pursuant to CCP section 1033.5(b) and Local Rule 1732(b). The following will not be approved: Postage, telephone calls, photocopying charges (except for exhibits), computer research fees, clerical services (labor for filing, organizing, preparing documents (i.e. any effort other than drafting), travel to and from court; and communication with the probate examiner and/or Court Research Attorney.

IN THIS CASE, attorney for Petitioner requested reimbursement of $231.65 for the following costs which are disallowed:

• Deed Search (First American Title )
• Postage
• Photocopy

Further Reduction of fee request for waste of court resources.  Due to the time it took out of court resources to distinguish and calculate the overbilling of extraordinary fees and inappropriate request for reimbursement of overhead costs, the extraordinary fee request should be reduced by $200 further, for a total of $7,480 in extraordinary fees, and $2,008.04 in costs.

If the escrow statement is not processed by 8:00 a.m. on June 16, 2025, 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: 160 543 3416

Passcode: 5053334