Probate: Lower Court’s Decision To Reduce Removed Trustee’s Requests For Attorney Fee Reimbursement By 75% Was No Abuse of Discretion

Trustee Violated Statutory Duties And His Attorney Missed Analysis Of Other Beneficiaries’ Claims, Such That The Large Reduction Was In Order.

            We know our blog has a diverse readership.  Thank you all for following us, especially in these unprecedented times.  Now, we have one for probate practitioners—yes, we remember you and will post on cases which may be of interest in this important area of practice.

            Strojan v. Strojan, Case No. C086485 (3d Dist. Oct. 28, 2020) (unpublished) began with a BANG!   It confirmed that the Probate Code is “studded” with provisions allowing trustees reimbursement for attorney’s fees to the extent those fees assist in trust administration activities.  (Hollaway v. Edwards, 68 Cal.App.4^th 94, 97 (1998).)  However, this broad principle is tempered, reasonably, by the caveat that those activities must benefit the trust rather than just the trustee.  (Whittlesey v. Aiello, 104 Cal.App.4^th 1221, 1230 (2002).)  Now we go to the application of these principles to the case which is the subject of this post.

            After a three-day bench trial, a trustee was removed and his request for trust-driven attorney’s fees was reduced by 75%.  That result was affirmed on appeal, because the record showed that trustee violated statutory duties and his attorney failed to properly assess countervailing arguments by beneficiaries which ultimately prevailed.  Large reduction affirmed, confirming that a trustee’s attorney needs to make sure his client’s actions are reasonable or defensible.  If not, you might get an unanticipated slash in your fees, and do not count on your disgruntled, removed trustee client to pay them!