Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Wehle v. Bradley

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 30, 2015No. 1101290Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMoore, Chief Justice

I respectfully dissent from Part III.B of the majority opinion; I concur with the remainder of the opinion. I do not believe the trial court erred by rejecting the daughters’ claim that the personal representatives should pay interest on the compensation they had paid themselves without prior court approval.

The majority quotes Ruttenberg v. Friedman, 97 So.3d 114, 134-35 (Ala.2012), for the proposition that “ ‘any error in the prior payment of [a personal representative’s] fees for ordinary services without prior court approval is moot’ ” once the court “ ‘issue[s] its final award, after…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ruttenberg v. FriedmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API