Bailey's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 25 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 35275,35275 |
| Citation | 56 Wn.2d 623,354 P.2d 920 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE of Clara Bode BAILEY, Deceased. |
Stanley J. Krause, Aberdeen, for appellant.
Charles B. Welsh, South Bend, Brodie & Fristoe, Olympia, of counsel, for respondents.
Clara Bode Bailey died intestate on March 21, 1955. She was survived by two sisters, Louisa Bode and Lottie Bode; and the three children, Grace Simonson, Melba Olson and Ivan Bode, of a deceased brother, Max Bode. Lottie Bode was appointed as special administratrix of the estate on May 2, 1955, and acted as such until August 2, 1955, at which time J. R. Schneider and C. A. Graves qualified and were appointed to act as joint general administrators. They retained Charles B. Welsh to act as their attorney. On January 28, 1958, the court approved the first interim report and petition for decree of distribution as presented by the administrators, wherein, inter alia, Welsh was awarded attorney's fees in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars for his services to date, based upon an estimate that the minimum gross estate would exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars. On November 7, 1958, certain of the assets of the estate were offered for sale at a public auction and were sold to Lottie Bode, the high bidder, for $68,112.28. On November 28, 1958, the administrators presented their second interim report. The court approved that report, and awarded attorney Welsh an additional fee of $5,000 for services rendered during the period between the first and second reports. Lottie Bode, having failed and refused to pay over to the estate the $68,112.28 bid at the above-noted auction, the court also authorized the administrators to commence suit to recover this sum. Additionally, the administrators were authorized to commence a quiet-title action on behalf of one Fred C. Turner respecting certain real property. Turner had purchased the land from the estate, and the quiet-title action was necessary in order that clear title might be conveyed to him.
Attorney Welsh represented the administrators in both the quiet-title action and in the suit against Lottie Bode. Both actions were successful, and the latter action resulted in entry of a judgment against Lottie Bode for the sum of $68,112.28, plus six per cent interest per annum from December 1, 1958, until paid. Lottie Bode made no attempt to pay the judgment until February 27, 1959, when she deposited $24,190 with the clerk of the court. In the meantime, the administrators, again represented by Welsh, intervened in a civil action pending between one Fernandez and Lottie Bode in the hope of thereby realizing some satisfaction of the judgment they held against Lottie Bode. On May 5 1959, Lottie Bode deposited an additional $27,110 with the clerk of the court. Several days earlier, on May 1, 1959, after a hearing before the court, an order had been entered authorizing the clerk to pay over to the administrators the sums received by the clerk from Lottie Bodie. At about the same time, the remainder of the judgment debt was recovered by the administrators, with the aid of attorney Welsh, through garnishment and other means. Consequently, the intervention in the Fernandez-Bode civil action was dropped.
On May 8, 1959, the administrators presented their third interim report and petition for final decree of distribution. This report was approved, and decree entered on May 22, 1959. The decree, in part, contained the following provisions: (1) an award to attorney Welsh of additional attorney's fees in the sum of $8,075.23, for services rendered since the filing of the second interim report; (2) a ruling that the estate should recover interest on the Lottie Bode judgment up to the date (May 1, 1959) of the order authorizing the clerk to pay the money received over to the administrators. Lottie Bode has appealed, assigning error to the aforementioned two facets of the decree; and also claiming that she was given no notice of the presentation and entry of the decree.
We shall consider first the question of attorney's fees. The trial court arrived at the sum of $8,075.23 as reasonable compensation for attorney Welsh's services subsequent to the second interim report on the basis of the folowing calculation:
(a) $6,811.23--10% of the judgment recovered against Lottie Bode;
(b) 250.00--services rendered in the Turner quiet-title suit;
(c) 250.00--services rendered in the Fernandez intervention;
(d) 765.00--$10 per hour for 76 1/2 hours office time expended in marshaling assets.
It is to be noted, of course, that this award was made in addition to the total of $20,000 previously awarded to Welsh by the orders approving the first the second interim reports. Appellant, Lottie Bode, does not contest the reasonableness of the earlier awards. Nor does she contest the reasonableness of the total of $500 awarded to Welsh for his services in the Turner and Fernandez matters. Her attack upon the $765, allowed for office time, is based solely upon a contention that there is no evidence to support the trial court's finding that Welsh expended 76 1/2 hours on the matters for which this fee was awarded. She points to Welsh's statement, made at the beginning of the hearing on the third interim report in support of the total fee he was asking the court to approve, wherein he indicated that he had put in a total of sixty-seven hours office time on these matters. The administrators' answer is that Welsh spent an additional 9 1/2 hours in preparation and presentation of the order approving the third interim final account, thus explaining the discrepancy which is bothering appellant. Respondents, however, have pointed to no evidence in the record supporting this claim, and we can find none. We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in awarding Welsh $765 rather than $670 (67 hours times $10 per hour) for office time.
Appellant's primary attack on the amount of attorney's fees awarded to Welsh is aimed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindsay v. Pacific Topsoils, Inc.
...on the December 2003 funds' release. The rationale in Lundgren is thus applicable to the case at hand. ¶ 15 In re Bailey's Estate, 56 Wash.2d 623, 354 P.2d 920 (1960), further supports this result. In Bailey, a woman bought property at an auction, but failed to pay the amount of the bid. Ba......
-
Coffin's Estate, In re
...He testified that he had considered the factors required to be considered in fixing reasonable attorney's fees in In re Estate of Bailey, 56 Wash.2d 623, 354 P.2d 920 (1960). Neither of the lawyer witnesses for the Aquarian Foundation was asked hypothetically what his opinion would be on th......
-
Estate of Larson, Matter of
...were taken, and all other matters which would aid the court in arriving at a fair and just allowance. See also In re Estate of Bailey, 56 Wash.2d 623, 354 P.2d 920 (1960). The objectors based their challenge to the fee on similar factors listed in DR 2-106 of the Code of Professional Respon......
-
State v. Bell
... ... Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 56 Wash.2d 957, 350 P.2d 1003, 353 P.2d 671 (1960); In re Bailey's Estate, 56 Wash.2d 623, 354 P.2d 920 (1960); Gooden v ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...(Johnson v. Bachmeier), 147 Wn.2d 60, 52 P.3d 22 (2002): 2.5(1)(b), 3.7(2)(c), 4.5(1)(c), 12.3(3)(c), 13.6(2)(c) Bailey, In re Estate of, 56 Wn.2d 623, 354 P.2d 920 (1960): 13.11(2) Baird, In re Estate of, 131 Wn.2d 514, 933 P.2d 1031 (1997): 12.14(3)(d) Baird v. Knutzen, 49 Wn.2d 308, 301 ......
-
Chapter §13.11 Establishing The Reasonableness of Attorney Fees and Costs
...768 P.2d 998, amended, 773 P.2d 420 (1989); McNeary v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 105 Wn.2d 136, 143, 712 P.2d 845 (1986); In re Estate of Bailey, 56 Wn.2d 623, 354 P.2d 920 (1960); In re Estate of Peterson, 12 Wn.2d 686, 728, 123 P.2d 733 (1942); RCW 11.68.100(2) (court is to consider all the crite......
-
Chapter §58.6 Analysis
...the payment to the judgment in question by a legally effective authorization or directive pursuant to RCW 4.56.100. In re Bailey's Estate, 56 Wn.2d 623, 354P.2d920 (1960). Payment into court and entry of satisfaction on the execution docket does not affect a plaintiff's right to appeal when......
-
Chapter §58.7 Significant Authorities
...a judgment, the clerk must be directed by the judgment debtor to apply the payment to the judgment in question. In re Bailey's Estate, 56 Wn.2d 623, 354P.2d920 (1960). Caveat: Funds held by the county clerk in satisfaction of a judgment are not subject to a writ of garnishment. Maybee v. Ma......