Decedent’s Estate Was Not Required To Pay Attorney Fees For Estate Administration And Related Litigation

• Thursday, April 7, 2016
• Category: Wills, Trusts and Estate Litigation

In the estate litigation and estate administration case of In Re Estate of Rodgers, PICS Case No. 15-1751 (Pa. Super. Oct. 28, 2015), the Honorable John Musmanno, writing on behalf of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, ruled that the decedent’s estate was not required to pay attorney fees for estate administration and related litigation where the trial court found that the amount of work performed was the result of an overly-complex estate plan devised by the attorney.

Ronald Jones and the Law Firm of Jones & Cwalina, LLP appealed from the order of the Orphans’ Court denying Jones’ exceptions to the order that sustained the objection to the payment of attorney fees from the estate of Elizabeth Rodgers, deceased, brought by Gregory Rodgers, a beneficiary of the estate, against various accounts filed by Mark Bradley, executor of the estate.

After a hearing, the Orphans’ Court determined that Jones was not entitled to any attorney fees from the estate. The evidence established that, in any event, the fee charged by Jones was excessive in light of the services provided. The court found that the estate plan established by Jones for decedent was overly complex in light of the nature of decedent’s assets, and it was this complexity that led to the excessive amount of work and litigation necessary to administer the estate, further compounded by Jones’ improper preparation of accountings.

As for the litigation services billed hourly by Jones, the Orphans’ Court found that there was no agreement for the estate to pay such fees. Moreover, the court ruled that Bradley was personally liable for such fees, as the Orphans’ Court found that such litigation was brought to advance Bradley’s personal interests as a beneficiary of the estate, and not to advance his fiduciary capacity as executor.

On appeal, Jones challenged the Orphans’ Court’s determinations that Jones was not entitled to fees because its efforts were of little value to the estate and largely the result of its incompetence in preparing and administering the estate plan. Furthermore, the efforts were primarily directed to advance the interests of Bradley in his personal capacity as a beneficiary of the estate and not in the capacity of executor.

However, the court ruled that the lower court’s factual determinations were supported by competent evidence, and therefore declined to overrule them. Moreover, the court ruled that the lower court’s legal rulings based on those factual determinations were also correct, and accordingly affirmed the Orphans’ Court’s denial of Jones’ exceptions to the objections the estate accounting.

Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 38 PLW 1147 (December 8, 2015).

Filed Under: Estate Administration; Estate Litigation; Payment of Attorney Fees.

Kindly visit our Probate & Estate Administration & Wills, Trust & Estate Litigation websites for more information on this topic.