SEARCH THIS BLOG

Categories

July 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« Section 1717: Banks Assignee On Open Book Account Not Entitled To Attorneys Fees Under Sections 1717 Or Section 1717.5(c) | Main | Private Attorney General: Company Vindicating Its Right To Immediate Superior Court Relief On Unemployment Insurance Benefit Issue Was Entitled To 1021.5 Fees Even Though Decision So Ruling Was Unpublished In Nature »

January 19, 2017

Comments

California Attorneys Fees

Interesting issue. We would suggest readers look at Estate of McDonald, 128 Cal.App.2d 719 (1954), because the decedent/beneficiary has to attempt to show a common benefit for the entire estate, although the showing was minimal in nature. Also look at Estate of Bullock, 133 Cal.App.2d 542 (1955), which demonstrates how NOT to do it in this context.

Walter Schmelter, Attorney at Law

Great case, to discourage one beneficiary from depriving the other(s) (via forced spending on atty fees) of their inheritance with some expired or otherwise groundless claim. Is there parallel case law in a non-trust probate setting? The rationale seems the same in either context.

The comments to this entry are closed.