Estate of Francis Edwin Robertson

Case Number

23PR00505

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 10/21/2025 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

The following must be addressed at the hearing:

Extraordinary Fees.  The request for extraordinary fees is high, compared to what the attorney is calling extraordinary work. Most of the work claimed as “extraordinary” was for 1) staving off foreclosure of real property, the only asset of noteworthy value in the estate; and 2) identifying heirs.  These may not be standard tasks in estate work, but they are by no means extraordinary standing alone.

However, the amount of legal work required for those tasks, due to their complicated nature, does appear to qualify as extraordinary to a degree.  Thus, the court should either lower the fees, or order the petitioner to file supplement addressing the following authority:

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 Cal.App.3d 426, 432.)

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

“[T]he court may allow additional compensation for extraordinary services by the attorney for the personal representative in an amount the court determines is just and reasonable.”  (Prob. Code, § 10811.)  “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.”  (In re Fulcher's Estate (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 710, 718.)  However, “the burden of proving the necessity for the services is on the representative claiming extraordinary fees for himself and his attorney.”  (Ibid.)

In order to give the court sufficient information to exercise discretion, petitions requesting extraordinary compensation in a decedent’s estate case, must contain the information required by California Rules of Court, Rule 7.702:

(1)  Show the nature and difficulty of the tasks performed;

(2)  Show the results achieved;

(3)  Show the benefit of the services to the estate;

(4) Specify the amount requested for each category of service performed;

(5)  State the hourly rate of each person who performed services and the hours spent by each of them;

(6)  Describe the services rendered in sufficient detail to demonstrate the productivity of the time spent; and

(7)  State the estimated amount of statutory compensation to be paid by the estate, if the petition is not part of a final account or report.

If the information required above is not submitted in the petition, “the reasonableness of the sums allowed by the court and the full nature of each service alleged to have been rendered must be determined from the declarations in the petition and in such inferences as may be drawn from documents in the record of the estate proceeding as reported in the clerk's transcript.” (In re Fulcher's Estate (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 710, 718.)

Phrases such as ‘court appearances,’ ‘initial investigation, study and preparation,’ ‘determination of complex issues,’ ‘sales of property,’ ‘services in connection with the collection of notes and accounts,’ ‘services in negotiating and completing the settlement of the issues presented by * * * and subsequent services in effectuating,’ ‘extensive preparation in advance of the hearing,’ ‘extensive office consultation, research, interviewing of witnesses, collection of evidence,’ ‘preparation and filing of * * * tax returns * * * including numerous conferences' lend little towards informing of the extent of the extraordinary services performed, without the taking of evidence to substantiate with particularity the actual services, item by item, for which extra compensation is sought.

(Id. at p. 717.)

In contrast, if the petition contains the information in Rule 7.702, the court must then look to discretionary factors, which includes the following:

1. Whether the amount of statutory compensation is sufficient to cover the ordinary services performed and the extraordinary services claimed (In re Buchman's Estate (1955) 138 Cal.App.2d 228, 235. See also Rule 7.703, subd. (a); 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, 912-13 [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 (Estate of Hilton, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 916 [“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.”]);
2. The size of the estate (Estate of Hilton, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 918);
3. The work performed by the attorney (Estate of Fulton (1937) 23 Cal.App.2d 563, 567);
4. The kind and character of the assets in the estate (In re Walker's Estate, supra, 221 Cal.App.2d at p. 795);
5. The effort involved in the care and preservation of estate property (Ibid.);
6. Facts that bear upon the labor and effort of the executor, administrator and attorney in the routine administration of the estate (Ibid.);
7. Whether the work performed was beneficial to the estate (In re Buchman's Estate (1955) 138 Cal.App.2d 228, 235);
8. Whether the work performed was necessary (Ibid.); and
9. The character of the services rendered (Ibid. [“was it performed in carrying out the ordinary duties of the personal representative, or was it in fact extraordinary.”])

If the court determines “the sum allowed by law appears to be a reasonable compensation, even though the attorney may have performed some extraordinary services, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to disallow claims for extra compensation, and, unless it appears that there has been an abuse of discretion, an appellate court is not at liberty to disturb the conclusion of the trial court.  (In re Fulton's Estate, supra, 23 Cal.App.2d at p. 567.)

Sale of real property

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 no actual “legal services” past simple document 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.”].)

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.)  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).  It is highly recommended petitioner use Local Form SC-6029.  No such document was filed with the court.

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