Legal Opinion

Lillick, Geary, Wheat, Adams & Charles v. Castro

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 1, 1964No. Civ. No. 21590Published

1Opinion of the CourtDraper, P. J.

Four of the five beneficiaries of the testamentary trust which received the residue of this estate employed appellant attorneys, in part to resist the application of the executors and their attorneys for extraordinary fees totalling $100,000. Appellants investigated the issue and negotiated with the executors’ attorneys. The probate court allowed $57,435, rather than the $100,000 originally sought. There was no contested hearing, and appellants allege that the lower fee was the result of “negotiated adjustment” with the executors and their attorneys. Appellants then sought payment from the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Estate of ReadeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Estate of FultonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  3. Bennett v. LundellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  4. Crawford v. KingsburyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Estate of WalkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API