In Re Kiebler Estate

345 N.W.2d 713, 131 Mich. App. 441
CourtMichigan Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 3, 1984
DocketDocket 67451
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 345 N.W.2d 713 (In Re Kiebler Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Kiebler Estate, 345 N.W.2d 713, 131 Mich. App. 441 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellants, beneficiaries of three-fourths of the Estate of Richard J. Kiebler, appeal as of right from the probate court’s allowance of the appellee’s first annual account. Appellants contest the allowance of fiduciary fees and attorney fees totaling $90,000. 1

The Revised Probate Code authorizes payment of reasonable compensation to a fiduciary and to attorneys who perform necessary legal services in behalf of the estate. MCL 700.541; MSA 27.5541 and MCL 700.543; MSA 27.5543. PCR 908.3 provides that, unless attorney fees are consented to by *443 all the parties, the attorney seeking compensation must provide the court with a written description of services performed, a summary of the work done and other information that may be helpful to the court in determining reasonable compensation.

In the present case, appellee appended to his first annual account a 52-page statement of services rendered in behalf of the estate by the law firm of Smith, Johnson & Demlow, Attorneys, P.C., and by appellee in his capacity as personal representative. 2 The statement contained itemized entries with brief descriptions of work performed on a total of 238 dates during the 13-month period beginning May 30, 1981, and ending June 30, 1982. The information supplied to the probate court did not, however, justify the allowance of $90,000 as reasonable fiduciary fees and attorney fees for the following reasons. See In re Estate of Weaver, 119 Mich App 796; 327 NW2d 366 (1982).

First, the statement fails to indicate whether the services were performed by appellee in his capacity as fiduciary or whether the work represented necessary legal services performed by the law firm. The distinction is important since MCL 700.543; MSA 27.5543 only allows compensation for necessary legal services. Appellee must identify which entries are claimed as legal services and what proportion of the total claimed fee represents compensation for legal services.

Second, certain entries relate to services rendered in connection with the operation of Kiebco Foods, Inc., the principal asset of the estate. To the extent appellee operated the company in his capacity as fiduciary of the estate, he is certainly entitled to reasonable compensation. However, it appears that appellee also performed services for *444 Kiebco in his capacity as corporate counsel and was separately compensated for those services. We believe appellants are entitled to a determination regarding any services for which appellee has already been compensated in his capacity as corporate counsel for Kiebco.

Third, the statement contains no designation of the time spent in performing the claimed services. Several of the entries are identified only as conferences or telephone calls, without any description of the subject matter. Several other entries involved administrative duties such as writing checks and depositing receipts. We recognize that appellee and his law firm rendered many valuable and complex administrative and legal services during this period. However, the statement submitted by appellee leaves the probate court and this Court without any means of determining the reasonableness of time spent in performing the various legal services to the estate. Appellee has not shown how he arrived at the $90,000 figure.

Finally, we agree that appellants are entitled to a statement of whether the claimed fiduciary fees and attorney fees represent compensation for all of the services rendered to the date of the first annual account.

We therefore reverse the allowance of fiduciary fees and attorney fees and remand the case to the probate court for an evidentiary hearing and determination of reasonable fiduciary fees and attorney fees to which appellee may be entitled. Since Judge Robertson disqualified himself subsequent to his allowance of the first annual account, the determination must necessarily be made by a different probate judge. Our holding makes it unnecessary to rule on the remaining issue raised by appellants.

*445 No interest shall be chargeable against attorney fees or fiduciary fees during the appeal period, nor shall attorney fees or fiduciary fees be charged against the estate for this appeal, this Court finding that such interest, fiduciary fees or attorney fees for appeal do not benefit the estate. In re Baldwin’s Estate, 311 Mich 288; 18 NW2d 827 (1945); In re Brack Estate, 121 Mich App 585; 329 NW2d 432 (1982).

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

1

The court’s order of February 17, 1982, approved payment of partial attorney fees in the amount of $40,000. The September 17, 1982, order allowing the first annual account approved fiduciary fees and attorney fees in the amount of $50,000, but stayed payment of $25,000 pending appeal.

2

Appellee is a shareholder in the law firm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Johnson v. Hughes Thorsness Powell Huddleston & Bauman LLC
119 P.3d 425 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2005)
In Re Estate of Johnson
119 P.3d 425 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2005)
Comerica Bank v. City of Adrian
446 N.W.2d 553 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1989)
In Re Krueger Estate
438 N.W.2d 898 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1989)
In Re O'Neill Estate
425 N.W.2d 133 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1988)
Noble v. McNerney
419 N.W.2d 424 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1988)
In Re Irwin Estate
413 N.W.2d 37 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1987)
Mason v. Campbell
162 Mich. App. 522 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1987)
Humphrey v. Detroit Bank & Trust Co.
141 Mich. App. 412 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1985)
In Re Humphrey Estate
367 N.W.2d 873 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1985)
In Re Baird Estate
357 N.W.2d 912 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
345 N.W.2d 713, 131 Mich. App. 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kiebler-estate-michctapp-1984.