Ex parte v. Lehman
Opinion of the Court
— In this incompetent’s estate, the sole question to be decided is 'whether the fee claimed by counsel for the guardian of the estate is excessive. On June 6, 1956, the first and final ac
The account shows gross receipts of principal in the sum of $4,296.97 and gross receipts of income in the sum of $122.70, and a net balance of principal and income in the sum of $4,233.12. The account states on its face that “This balance is subject to a fee for services rendered by the firm of Wright, Mauck, Hawes & Spencer, attorneys for the accountant and which is claimed in the sum of $750, but is1 not included in the disbursements due to the fact that the accountant demurred to the payment of such compensation for services rendered in an insolvent estate with such assets. Attorneys for the accountant hold themselves in readiness to justify the fee requested. • »
Neither the account nor the proposed schedule of distribution annexed thereto contains any item for fee for attorneys for accountant. Counsel for Jennie Kratz Hunsberger and Viola Detwiler, two creditors of the incompetent, have objected to the fee claimed by the attorneys for the accountant. On February 27, 1957, this court ordered the matter on the equity trial list for the purpose of taking testimony pertaining to the aforesaid claim of counsel fee.
Federico F. Mauck, Esq., testified that the guardian was appointed on November 4, 1953; that the incompetent had been, engaged in the business of collection of rents and mortgages; that on November 9, 1953, Mr. Mauck prepared a power of attorney; that in pursuance of the authority conferred upon his office by the guardian, on November 10th he conferred with Mr. Caiola for half an hour; that on the next day he conferred with Mr. Pearlstine for an hour and a half and with Mr. Shrimer for half an.hour; that he inspected the contents of a safety deposit box for an
The fee requested by counsel for the guardian is considerably in excess of the fee computed according to the minimum fee bill of the local bar association. However, that is only a minimum fee bill, and we do not regard it as a standard of adequacy of compensation under the extraordinary circumstances here presented. The evidence submitted to us amply justifies an award of counsel fee to the attorneys for the accountant in the full amount requested.
And now, May 15, 1957, it is ordered and .decreed that .the proposed schedule of distribution is confirmed
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.