Estate of Ingrid Birthe Helene Barr

Case Number

22PR00393

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 02/26/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

The following must be submitted:

Supplement to the Petition re: Creditor Claims. All information regarding creditor’s claims must be alleged; whether or not one was filed, and status of any claims filed (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(1)), including the following information for each claim (CRC, Rule 7.403; Prob. Code, § 10900):

• claimant's name
• date of filing of the claim
• nature of the claim
• amount claimed
• disposition of the claim
• the date of service of the rejection and whether or not a lawsuit was filed, IF a creditor’s claim was rejected

The Petition falsely alleges only one creditor’s claim was filed, and falsely alleges no rejection of claims. There were, in fact, two creditor’s claims filed, one of which was rejected.  The unalleged creditor’s claim was filed by Bradley L. Barr on June 3, 2024.  The allowance or rejection of that claim was filed with the Court on June 11, 2024, showing the Personal Representative rejected the claim. An amendment to the petition must be filed accounting for this claim. Amendments to petitions must be filed and served in the same manner as the service requirements of the petition that is amended. (CRC, Rule 7.53.) Thus, the hearing on this petition will have to be continued to allow enough time for service.

Accounting or Waivers.  The Petition does not include an accounting that complies with Probate Code section 1060, et seq., and there are no waivers of accounting on file.

Each person entitled to distribution from the estate may waive a final account by 1) filing a written waiver of account (Prob. Code, § 10954, subd. (a)(1)); OR by filing 2) proof of adequate provision for satisfaction in full of the person’s interest (Id., subd. (a)(2)).

The final account must be submitted, if not waived. (Prob. Code, § 10951.)  The final account must contain all items listed in Probate Code section 1061:

• A Summary of Account with supporting schedules. (See form GC-400SUM for guide. Although not mandatory in Decedent’s Estates, it is strongly recommended petitioner use this form for this estate.)
• The property on hand at the beginning of the period covered by the account, which shall be the value of the property initially received by the fiduciary if this is the first account, and shall be the property on hand at the end of the prior account if this is a subsequent account.
• The value of any assets received during the period of the accounting which are not assets on hand as of the commencement of the administration of an estate.
• The amount of any receipts of income or principal, excluding items listed under paragraphs (1) and (2) or receipts from a trade or business.
• Net income from a trade or business.
• Gains on sales.
• The amount of disbursements, excluding disbursements for a trade or business or distributions.
• Loss on sales.
• Net loss from trade or business.
• Distributions to beneficiaries, the ward or conservatee.
• Property on hand at the end of the accounting period, stated at its carry value.

Supplement or Withdrawal of Request for Extraordinary Fees.  Attorney for Petitioner requested extraordinary fees in the amount of $11,569.  The request, and most importantly, the reasons and evidence offered in support of the request in light of the history of this case, are both alarming and unsupported by law.

When extraordinary compensation is requested for the personal representative or attorney, allegations must contain enough facts for the Court to exercise discretion pursuant to Probate Code section 10811 and CRC, Rule 7.703, and the evidence must be sufficient to substantiate the allegations. The only facts alleged in support of the request for extraordinary fees in this case was the following paragraph in a declaration:

Both myself and my team spent a significant amount of time dealing with the real property located at 970 College Canyon Road in Solvang, California. Specifically, my team and I dealt with preparing and serving Notice of Proposed Action, dealing with the objection from Kathy Meyer, multiple hearings on the issue of the sale of 970 College Canyon Road, dealing with Creditor Claims filed by the Franchise Tax Board, and finalization of the sale of 970 College Canyon Road.

(Benitez Decl., at ¶8.)

Not only does this vague statement fail to elucidate any fact that warrants extraordinary fees, but the history of this case reveals evidence in the record of inexperience and/or a lack of competence of the attorneys involved handling common, ordinary Probate Code procedures for the administration of a decedent’s estate that were the direct cause of the unusual amount of hearings and significant delays in the administration of this estate. 

The following is an inexhaustive list of evidence on the record:

• The first hearing in this case (Sept. 21, 2022) resulted in Ms. Benitez requesting a 45 day continuance to clear multiple probate notes involving procedural defects, including publication in the wrong newspaper adjudicated for general circulation in the location of Decedent’s residence.  A list of publications adjudicated newspapers of general circulation in specific areas of this County is readily available on the Court’s website.

• The procedural defects related to the initial petition took three hearings to resolve, delaying the administration of this estate by over 6 months before an Order for Probate was granted.  Even after that was granted, letters did not issue for almost 4 months, without explanation.

• On October 20, 2023, attorneys for Petitioner inappropriately filed a “Petition for Court Authorization to Confirm Proposed Action” that had to be stricken because the filing did not comply with the law. In response to the probate notes identifying this defect, attorneys for petitioner improperly filed the Report of Sale and Petition for Order Confirming Sale of Real Property (outlined in Probate Code section 10308, et seq., enshrined in Form DE-260) via supplement, in conflict with the Probate Code provisions outlining Due Process governing that procedure. The Confirmation of Sale was mandated by code due to an objection to the sale filed by an heir of the estate.  Even when the proper procedure was followed by attorneys for petitioner, the petition was so defective it necessitated amendment, causing the eventual confirmation of sale to be delayed for six months.

Even if the above noted problems had not been caused by the very attorneys now seeking extraordinary fees, the amount of fees requested could not be awarded, because the rates charged for the alleged work performed are far above the community standard and not supported by law.  The most egregious example of which is charging $265 per hour for a law clerk working as a paralegal on most of the work being billed for this case, the descriptions of which show a clear unfamiliarity with probate procedures.  Entries such as “legal research” and "calls with client," along with the bulk of the alleged extraordinary work entries, are for ordinary, not extraordinary work.  A well-respected treatise makes plain:

The amount of compensation for ordinary services to the estate is identical for both the personal representative and the attorney. Prob C §§10800, 10810. This compensation is for performance of the ordinary duties of collection, care, and preservation of estate property during the entire administration. It is also intended to cover incidental expenses, such as photocopies, local telephone calls, postage, computer research, local travel and mileage, and secretarial or clerical services. See, e.g.,Fresno Ct R 7.17(B); Los Angeles Ct R 4.43. The representative may petition the court for reimbursement of additional expenses, such as travel to attend to estate business.

Ordinary services by a representative include services performed in locating and assembling estate assets, paying claims, collecting rents, leasing property, accounting, and making payments necessary to complete the administration. If the representative chooses to employ an agent to perform services that are attributable to carrying out the representative’s ordinary duties, the fees for those services will be charged against the representative’s ordinary compensation. For example, preparing the final accounting is considered part of the representative’s duties; therefore, if the representative hires an accountant to prepare the accounting, the accountant’s fees will be paid from the representative’s ordinary compensation. Estate of Billings (1991) 228 CA3d 426.

(Cal. Decedent Estate Practice (CEB 2024) “Ordinary Compensation,” §30.33.)

As a result of the above circumstances, and the resulting delay caused, it is recommended the Court deny extraordinary fees and reduce the statutory fee by $3,000.

The court, on the hearing of the petition for final distribution or on a petition for allowance on account of compensation of the representative or attorney, has the authority under Probate Code section 12205 to reduce the statutory compensation if the court considers the delay unreasonable.

The above delays were unreasonable, unless attorneys for Petitioner submit supplement showing good cause as to the delays and procedural errors in the above proceedings.

Proposed Order.  A proposed order must be submitted 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.)  It is highly recommended petitioner use Local Form SC-6029.  No such document was filed with the court.

If the documents curing these deficiencies are not processed by 8:00 a.m. on February 25, 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: 161 956 1423

Passcode: 137305