Estate of David Paul Lara

Case Number

23PR00461

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 05/05/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

The following must be submitted:

Notice to Relevant State Entities.  Paragraph 9 of the petition was left blank/unalleged.  Notice of the petition must be served to the following state entity:

• Director of the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board - If an heir or beneficiary is or has previously been confined in CDCR facility, county or city jail, road camp, industrial farm, etc., notice must have been given to the Director of the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board not later than 90 days after letters issued (§ 9202, subd. (b))

Extraordinary Fees.  If extraordinary compensation is requested for the personal representative or attorney in Prayer, allegations must contain enough facts for the Court to exercise discretion pursuant to Probate Code section 10811 and CRC, Rule 7.703. According to the billing statements on file, the request for extraordinary fees is solely related to the sale of real property that was owned by the estate.

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 $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.”].)

IN THIS CASE, there does not appear to have been a need for “legal services” to sell the one parcel of real estate during administration of this estate, other than simple document review. That fact, coupled with the fact that a real estate broker was employed on both sides of the transaction, necessitates a denial of the requested extraordinary fees.

If the documents curing these deficiencies are not processed by 8:00 a.m. on May 2, 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: 161 797 5412

Passcode: 8749009