In re Chapin's Estate
| Decision Date | 12 January 1944 |
| Docket Number | 29196. |
| Citation | 144 P.2d 738,19 Wn.2d 770 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re CHAPIN'S ESTATE. |
Department 1.
Proceeding in the matter of the estate of Dora E. Chapin, deceased, on petition by Ballinger, Hutson & Boldt and B. H. Camperson to have the court fix an attorney's fee for their services in representing Joseph A. Sweeney, executor of the last will and testament of Dora E. Chapin, deceased, in a will contest opposed by Charlotte M. Bouffleur, as guardian of the person and estate of Evelyn Chapin, a minor, and others. From an order fixing the fees at $5,000 to be paid for the estate and denying a motion to apportion the fee between Delbert W Sweitzer and Joseph W. Sweeney as executor, Charlotte M Bouffleur, as guardian of the person and estate of Evelyn Chapin, a minor, and others, appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Roger J. Meakim, judge.
Lynwood Fix, of Seattle, for appellants.
Ballinger, Hutson & Boldt, of Seattle, for respondents.
This matter is Before us on the petition of Ballinger, Hutson & Boldt and B. H. Camperson, to have the court fix an attorney's fee for their services in representing Joseph A. Sweeney, executor of the last will and testament of Dora E. Chapin, deceased, in a will contest.
The petition in substance alleges: On November 13, 1940, Dora E. Chapin executed in due form her last will and testament, which has been admitted to probate in King county, Washington, the testatrix having died on January 14, 1941. (By the will of November 13, 1940, deceased left her property to her husband, Virgil W. Chapin, her son, Louis F. Chapin, her adopted daughter, Evelyn Dorthea Chapin, and Delbert W. Sweitzer, a one-fourth interest to each, naming Joseph W. Sweeney executor.) Thereafter, on Feburary 14, 1941, Charlotte M. Bouffleur, individually and as guardian of the person and estate of Evelyn Chapin, a minor, Louis F. Chapin and Virgil W. Chapin instituted a contest of the will of November 13, 1940, and proffered for probate a prior will of Dora E. Chapin. (Under this proposed will, dated September 8, 1936, the husband, Virgil W. Chapin, the son, Louis F. Chapin, and the adopted daughter, Evelyn Chapin, were the only named beneficiaries, and Charlotte M. Bouffleur, a sister of deceased, was named executrix.)
On February 18, 1942, the court declared the will of November 13, 1940, to be invalid and void, and ordered that the same be set aside, at the same time decreeing that the will of September 8, 1936, was the valid, unrevoked will of the deceased, and admitting this will to probate. Joseph A. Sweeney, executor of the will of November 13th, deeming it necessary to do so, employed petitioners to represent him in the will contest, and petitioners did represent him in the hearing in the lower court. Mr. Sweeney, as executor, appealed to the Supreme Court from the decree holding the will of November 13th invalid and void, being represented by petitioners on such appeal. The Supreme Court, on March 17, 1943, reversed the judgment of the lower court, and directed the reinstatement of the will of November 13th as the last will and testament of deceased. In re Chapin's Estate, Wash., 135 P.2d 445.
The petition further alleges that all of the services to Mr. Sweeney, as executor, were rendered by George H. Boldt, representing petitioners; that Mr. Camperson is now in the United States army, serving abroad, and Mr. Boldt is in the military service of the United States, at present in Seattle, but under orders to proceed to another part of the United States.
It is further alleged that Mr. Sweeney has filed a report as executor under the will of November 13, 1940, which report was approved by the court, February 25, 1942, the order approving the report containing the following paragraph: 'That the said Joseph A. Sweeney as executor, and B. H. Camperson and Ballinger, Hutson & Boldt, as his attorneys, be, and they hereby are, allowed and adjudged entitled to compensation for their respective services rendered herein, provided that the amounts of such compensation shall be fixed by the court following the time when the decree of this court made and entered February 18, 1942, becomes final.'
(This is the decree from which the appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, hereinBefore referred to.)
It is further alleged that $7,500 is a reasonable sum to be paid petitioners, jointly, as compensation for their services; that if the remittitur had been sent down and received, Joseph A. Sweeney would have agreed that the above sum was reasonable, would have allowed petitioners' claim, and is willing to submit the claim to the court without awaiting the coming down of the remittitur.
Upon the filing of the petition, the court fixed April 8, 1943, as the date for hearing the petition, and ordered that a copy of the order and petition be served upon Joseph A. Sweeney, and upon Lynwood W. Fix, as attorney for Charlotte M. Bouffleur, individually, and as guardian of the person and estate of Evelyn Chapin, Louis F. Chapin and Virgil W. Chapin.
On May 14, 1943, Lynwood Fix, as attorney for the persons last above named, filed a motion asking for a show cause order directing Delbert W. Sweitzer to appear Before the court on May 21, 1943, at the time of the determination of the petition of attorneys for the fixing of fees, and show cause, if any he has, why attorney's fees for services rendered should not be apportioned between Delbert W. Sweitzer and Joseph A. Sweeney, as executor. A show cause order was issued in accordance with the foregoing motion.
The hearing on the petition and show cause order was continued from time to time, but the matter finally came on for hearing on April 6, 1943. Testimony was taken, and thereafter, on June 14, 1943, the court entered an order fixing the fee to be allowed the firm of Ballinger, Hutson and Boldt, and B. H. Camperson, at $5,000, to be paid from the estate, and denying the motion of Mr. Fix, as attorney for the persons hereinBefore mentioned, to apportion the fee between Mr. Sweitzer and Mr. Sweeney.
From this order, Charlotte M. Bouffleur, as guardian of the person and estate of Evelyn Chapin, a minor, Louis F. Chapin and Virgil W. Chapin, have appealed to this court.
Appellants' assignments of error are that the court erred in allowing petitioners more than $3,500 as attorney's fees; in not charging the attorney's fees allowed between the executor and Mr. Sweitzer; and in charging more than one-half of the fees allowed to the executor.
It appears to be admitted by appellants, as shown by question No. 1, 'Statement of Questions Involved,' that where an executor employs attorneys in a will contest with no agreed fee, the attorneys are entitled to reasonable compensation. Appellants contend that any fee in an amount more than $3,500 is unreasonable. The court allowed $5,000.
Appellants' statement of the next question involved is that 'Where the procurer of a will successfully appeals the judgment of the trial court holding a will invalid, he should pay a reasonable share of the attorneys' fees allowed, especially where he sustained financial benefit from the decision.'
These questions require a discussion of the testimony, especially the question of the attorney's fees allowed.
Some idea of the amount of work done in the will contest by the attorneys here involved may be obtained from the following statement made by this court In re Chapin's Estate, Wash., 135 P.2d 445:
The evidence in this case as to the services performed by these attorneys, to whom we shall hereinafter refer as respondents, consists very largely of the testimony of George Boldt, of the firm of Ballinger, Hutson & Boldt. His testimony may be summarized as follows: He was engaged in the litigation arising out of the contest of Mrs. Chapin's will, in which Mr. Sweeney was named as executor, as a member of the above-named firm, and B. H. Camperson was associated with him in the case. Mr. Boldt was first consulted by Mr. Sweeney in regard to the Chapin estate about the middle of May, 1941, approximately a month Before the trial of the will contest. (We shall refer to the will of November 13th as the Sweeney will.) At that time Mr. Boldt was informed of the Sweeney will, and that it had been admitted to probate and a contest started by appellants. Mr. Sweeney at that time outlined in a general way the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, and asked Mr. Boldt if he would be free to accept employment to represent him (Sweeney) in association with Mr. Camperson in the defense of the contest proceedings. Mr. Boldt informed Mr. Sweeney he would be glad to accept the employment.
From that time until the opening of the trial on June 23, 1941 Mr. Boldt spent considerable time with Mr. Camperson and Mr. Sweeney in interviewing witnesses, examining exhibits, and briefing the law. Mr. Camperson had, prior to the time of Mr. Boldt's employment, made quite an extensive brief on the authorities pertaining to will contests, and Mr. Boldt examined these authorities and did additional briefing, spending considerable time with Mr. Camperson discussing the various points which might be raised in the contest. Doctors were interviewed concerning Mrs. Chapin's condition and the various ailments from which she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gavin v. Everton
-
Dickey's Estate, In re
...Labry, 210 Ala. 248, 97 So. 707; Ex parte Landrum, 69 S.C. 136, 48 S.E. 47; In re Baugh's Estate, 12 Pa.Dist.R. 303; In re Chapin's Estate, 19 Wash.2d 770, 144 P.2d 738. In our opinion where the testator gives specific legacies and a specific devise and creates a residuary estate he does so......
-
Table of Cases
...417, 60 P.2d 41 (1936): 3.3(2)(b), 13.3(2)(a) Chapin's Estate, In re, 17 Wn.2d 196, 135 P.2d 445 (1943): 3.3(5)(a) Chapin's Estate, In re, 19 Wn.2d 770, 144 P.2d 738 (1944): 13.10(3)(a) Chaplin v. Sanders, 100 Wn.2d 853, 676 P.2d 431 (1984): 13.3(3)(a) Chappell, In re Estate of, 127 Wash. 6......
-
Chapter A. Establishing The Will
...66 Wn.2d 838, 849, 405 P.2d 602 (1965). 156 In re Klein's Estate, 28 Wn.2d 456, 475, 183 P.2d 518 (1947). 157 In re Chapin's Estate, 19 Wn.2d 770, 144 P.2d 738 158 In re Kleinlein's Estate, 59 Wn.2d 111, 113, 366 P.2d 186 (1961); In re Estate of Pfleghar, 35 Wn.App. 844, 670 P.2d 677 (1983)......
-
Table of Cases
...(1936): 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 45, 47 Chapin's Estate, In re, 17 Wn.2d 196, 135 P.2d 445 (1943): 66, 70, 71, 74 Chapin's Estate, In re, 19 Wn.2d 770, 144 P.2d 738 (1944): 387 Chaplin v. Sanders, 100 Wn.2d 853, 676 P.2d 431 (1984): 392, 396 Chapman's Estate, In re, 37 Wn.2d 682, 225 P.2d 88......
-
§13.10 Other Selected Attorney Fees and Costs Statutes in Title 11 RCW
...representative to uphold and defend the will. In re Estate of Shaughnessy, 104 Wn.2d 89, 95, 702 P.2d 132 (1985); In re Chapin's Estate, 19 Wn.2d 770, 784, 144 P.2d 738 (1944); In re Estate of Jolly, 3 Wn.2d 615, 624, 101 P.2d 995 (1940). When a will is contested, it is the duty of the pers......