Dolan v. Severance
Massachusetts Appeals Court
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
- Miller v. SternMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
- Lane v. CroninMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1962
- Karvonen v. HalmetojaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979