Legal Opinion

Dolan v. Severance

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided July 7, 1981Published

1Opinion of the Court

On the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner conferred no benefit upon the estate, a probate judge dismissed, as a matter of law, a petition for counsel fees and expenses incurred in behalf of proponents and named coexecutors of a will which was disallowed. It has been consistently held that in order for counsel fees and expenses to be fixed and determined by a probate judge under G. L. c. 215, § 39A, the attorney must show that his or her services “conferred a benefit upon the estate, and ‘benefit conferred’ means assistance in ‘creating, preserving or increasing the estate.’”…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Miller v. SternMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
  2. Lane v. CroninMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1962
  3. Karvonen v. HalmetojaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API