Meeker v. Moore (In re Robinson's Estate)

• Citation: 231 Iowa 1099,3 N.W.2d 158
• Decision Date: 07 April 1942
• Docket Number: No. 45826.,45826.
• Parties: In re ROBINSON'S ESTATE. MEEKER v. MOORE et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

231 Iowa 1099
3 N.W.2d 158

In re ROBINSON'S ESTATE.
MEEKER
v.
MOORE et al.

No. 45826.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 7, 1942.

Appeal from District Court, Marshall County; B. O. Tankersley, Judge.

Application in probate by F. L. Meeker for the allowance of fees as attorney for the administrator. The administrator and three legatees filed resistance and counterclaim seeking to recover a portion of the attorney fees previously allowed. The applicant filed a demurrer to the counterclaim which the court sustained. The administrator and legatees elected to stand upon their pleading and have appealed to this court.

Reversed.

[3 N.W.2d 159]

Henry Curvo, of Clear Lake, Uhlenhopp & Uhlenhopp, of Hampton, and Stipp, Perry, Bannister & Starzinger, of Des Moines for appellants.

C. H. Van Law, of Marshalltown, for appellee.

GARFIELD, Justice.

F. L. Meeker filed an application in the district court for allowance of compensation as attorney for the administrator with will annexed of Mary Alice Robinson, deceased. To this application the administrator and three legatees filed written resistance denying the application and alleging that appellant had already taken from the estate $1,034.65, which was $714.65 more than the maximum fee provided by law for an estate such as this with assets not exceeding $10,000. The administrator and legatees also filed a counterclaim in which, as amended, they alleged that Perry A. Moore, administrator, lived about 100 miles from Marshall county where the estate was being administraed; that after his appointment as administrator, Moore employed the applicant as his attorney and had both an oral and written agreement with him, confirmed by order of court, that there was to be joint control of all estate funds, and that no checks were to be issued without the administrator's signature; that all reports were to be signed by the administrator, and that no moneys were to be paid out without the knowledge, consent and signature of the administrator; that disregarding this agreement and without the knowledge or consent of the administrator or other interested parties, said applicant wrote checks to himself which he cashed and made reports to the court and obtained ex parte orders of court allowing attorney fees to himself; that the sums so unlawfully paid to himself total $1,034.65.

It was further alleged in the counterclaim that the services performed by the applicant consisted of the ordinary services commonly performed by attorneys for an estate; that no extraordinary services were performed; that the total value of the estate did not exceed $10,000 and the maximum statutory attorney fee was therefore $320; that in procuring the exparte orders, the applicant perpetrated a fraud upon the court and upon the administrator and others interested in the estate. The prayer of the amended counterclaim was that the application for additional

[3 N.W.2d 160]

attorney fees be denied; that the ex parte orders allowing compensation be set aside; that upon full hearing the applicant be compelled to account for all sums in excess of the maximum statutory attorney fees for ordinary services, and that a personal judgment be rendered against applicant for such excess.

The applicant demurred to the...