Bullock's Estate, In re

• Decision Date: 13 June 1955
• Citation: 284 P.2d 960,133 Cal.App.2d 542
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE of Margaret S. BULLOCK, Deceased. Lyndol L. YOUNG, Petitioner and Appellant, v. M. Bruce GILREATH, Executor and Respondent. Civ. 20691.

Page 960

284 P.2d 960

133 Cal.App.2d 542

In the Matter of the ESTATE of Margaret S. BULLOCK, Deceased.

Lyndol L. YOUNG, Petitioner and Appellant, v. M. Bruce GILREATH, Executor and Respondent.

Civ. 20691.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

June 13, 1955.

Rehearing Denied July 11, 1955.

Hearing Denied Aug. 11, 1955.

Lyndol L. Young, Los Angeles, in pro per.

Vaughan, Brandlin & Wehrle, and Brady, Nossman & Walker, Los Angeles, by Fred F. Wehrle, Los Angeles, for respondent.

WHITE, Presiding Justice.

Margaret S. Bullock died May 9, 1952 leaving a last will and testament in which she named Rev. Lorenzo M. Malone, S. J., and M. Bruce Gilreath, co-executors and co-trustees. The former declined to act in either capacity and on May 29, 1952 M. Bruce Gilreath was granted Letters Testamentary and since that date he has served as such executor. On December 31, 1953 the superior court confirmed his appointment by decedent's will as trustee.

By the terms and provisions of decedent's will, the bulk of her estate, comprised of securities, cash and personal property and appraised at the value of $2,515,992.73 was placed in trust for the use and benefit of her sister, Helen Bullock Chappellet, and decedent's nieces and nephew, Mary Margaret Fewel Smith, Valerie Chappellet, Felicia Helen Chappellet and John Bullock Fewel, or their issue. Decedent's said sister received a legacy of $100,000, and under the trust provisions of the will is entitled to income from three-eighths of the trust estate during her lifetime, and each of the said nieces and nephew is entitled to the income from one-eighth of the trust estate until they attain designated ages, at which times they are entitled to distribution of the one-eighth of the trust estate set aside for their use and benefit. The income from the remaining one-eighth of the trust estate is to be accumulated for the use and benefit of decedent's said sister, nieces and nephew.

The trust is to be terminated upon the death of the survivor of decedent's said sister, nieces and nephew, and upon termination, the corpus of the trust estate is to be distributed to the issue of the said nieces and nephew, and if none, then equally to the Sisters of Charity of Albuquerque Hospital, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Rev. Lorenzo M. Malone, S. J., for distribution among such charities as he shall direct.

On May 29, 1952, respondent, as executor, filed his petition for an order authorizing the continuance of a certain business allegedly belonging to decedent. The business sought to be continued was that of producing and distributing, jointly with Thetis Film, an Italian corporation, 26 motion pictures of approximately 26 1/2 minutes in length, all suitable primarily for television presentation in the United States. The maximum cost for the production of said 26 motion pictures was to have been $325,000, with the provision for an increase not to exceed 20% of the maximum cost, which was to have been borne equally by decedent and said Thetis Film, and the profits therefrom shared by them in somewhat the same fashion.

In support of his petition aforesaid, respondent, as executor, contended that in setting up the Italian Television venture he executed the various agreements forming the basis for the television venture, for and on behalf of decedent. In other words, that decedent was his undisclosed principal and that he signed merely as her agent. The executor's petition asked that he be authorized to proceed under the terms of the television venture contract and to impose the liabilities of said contract on the estate, the first of which would be the assumption by the estate of a payment of $175,000 which was then due under the contract, as well as undetermined liabilities that might arise in the future.

Becoming apprehensive that if the foregoing petition was granted, their interests in the estate would be jeopardized, all primary beneficiaries under the will procured the services of counsel to intervene and oppose the petition of the executor.

Appellant herein represented Mary Margaret Fewel Smith and John Bullock Fewel; Attorney Charles E. Quirollo appeared for Helen Bullock Chappellet, and Wright, Wright, Green and Wright for the California Trust Company, guardian of the estates of Felicia Helen Chappellet and Valerie Chappellet, minors.

When the foregoing petition of the executor came on for hearing, appellant and the attorneys for the other primary beneficiaries under decedent's will, appeared and objected to and resisted said executor's petition. Following a hearing commencing on June 4, 1952 and ending on June 12, 1952, the superior court made its order denying the executor's petition in its entirety. No appeal was taken therefrom and the order is now final. In addition to the foregoing it is unquestioned and found by the court that the legal services rendered by appellant extended over the period from May 15, 1952 to December 2, 1953 and was successful in each instance where his services were performed.

Following completion of his services appellant filed in the estate his petition for an order allowing attorneys fees in a sum to be determined by the court and to be paid from the assets of said estate. After a hearing upon appellant's petition for fees the court made its order denying the same. From such order appellant prosecutes this appeal.

Among the pertinent findings of the trial court are the following:

'VIII

'It is true that petitioner Lyndol L. Young appeared in various court proceedings and hearings on behalf of said Mary Margaret Fewel Smith and John Bullock Fewel and performed various legal services consisting primarily

Page 763

of objections to Executor's petition to continue business involving the marketing of television films and recordings, financing of said television productions and operating an electrical appliance distributorship, and objections to Executor's petition for authority to pay Federal Estate Taxes and State Inheritance Taxes from the income of the decedent's estate and testamentary trust.

* * *

* * *

'X

'It is true that the legal services of petitioner Lyndol L. Young did not increase, preserve or protect the estate or any of its assets.

'XI.

'It is true that the legal services performed by petitioner Lyndol L. Young were for the benefit of the income beneficiaries and to the detriment of the residuary beneficiaries under the will of said decedent.

'XII

'It is true that the legal services performed by petitioner Lyndol L. Young were made necessary by reason of a difference of opinion between the executor and his attorneys, on the one hand, and the beneficiaries and their respective attorneys, including petitioner Lyndol L. Young, on the other, as to the interpretation of the will and the administration of the estate.

* * *

* * *

'XVII

'It is true that petitioner Lyndol L. Young performed substantial legal services on behalf of said estate and all of the said beneficiaries at the request of and under the direction of the Court of conducting an extensive examination of M. Bruce Gilreath, Executor, under oath, at the hearing before the Court from November 16th to December 2nd, 1953, concerning the qualifications of M. Bruce Gilreath to be appointed Trustee of said estate; that the entire examination conducted by petitioner Lyndol L. Young is set forth in the reporter's transcript covering said hearing; * * *. That neither the estate nor any of the beneficiaries or persons interested in the estate received any benefit from said services described in this Paragraph XVII.'

There can be no doubt in this case that appellant rendered legal services which, as the court stated in its memorandum of opinion; 'were of value to the estate', and that appellant's clients, through his efforts were, as the court stated, 'successful in each instance' wherein they appeared as objectors and opposed the actions and contemplated actions of the executor and trustee under the will.

But the question which confronted the trial court, and is now presented to us, is whether appellant can be compensated for his legal services out of the general assets of the estate.

The applicable rule is thus stated in Re Estate of Reade, 31 Cal.2d 669, 671, 672, 191...