Case ID: mich-app_7/html/0228-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Quinn, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re ACH ESTATE. ACH v. ACH.
    1. Executors and Administrators — Allowance op Fees and Expenses — Statutes.
    By statute, every guardian, testamentary trustee, or administrator shall be allowed the amount of his reasonable expenses incurred in the execution of his trust, and he shall also have such compensation for his services as the eourt, in which his accounts are settled, shall deem to be just and reasonable (CL 1948, § 704.33).
    2. Appeal and Error — Executors and Administrators — Allowance op Fees — Judicial Discretion- — Fiduciaries.
    Discretion is vested in the trial eourt in the allowance of items contained in the final aeeount of one charged with the administration of an estate, and the decision of the trial court, whether it results in a charge in favor of or against a fiduciary will only be overruled when there appears to have been a manifest abuse of such discretion.
    3. Executors and Administrators — Allowance op Fees and Expenses — Appeal and Error — Discretion op Court.
    Allowance to special administrator of a fee of $100 for his services as administrator, and allowance of an attorney fee of $225, and disallowance of all claimed expenses of administration held, proper, where record fails to establish that acts of special administrator, giving rise to the fees and expenses claimed, were a necessity in the execution of the trust, since the Court of Appeals does not reverse the decision of the trial court in the allowance of items of such character unless the reeord establishes a manifest abuse of discretion by the trial court (CL 1948, § 704.33).
    Beferences por Points in Headnotes
    [1] 21 Am Jur, Executors and Administrators §§ 510, 519.
    [2, 3] 21 Am Jur, Executors and Administrators § 541 et seq.
    
    Appeal from Shiawassee; Carland (Michael), J.
    Submitted Division 2, March 2, 1967, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 2,405.)
    Decided June 27, 1967.
    
      Stephen Ach, special administrator of the estate of Libor Ach, deceased, filed with the Shiawassee County Probate Court his final account as special administrator of said estate, which included sums claimed for fees and expenses of administration and attorney fees. William Ach and Louise Rosina objected to the amount of said items. The probate court allowed the account, except for said items which it took under advisement. When the probate court entered no opinion thereon within 90 days, plaintiff appealed to the circuit court which allowed no expenses, a special administrator’s fee of $100, and an attorney fee of $225. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Kelly & Stevens, for plaintiff.
    
      Norman J. Van Epps, for defendants.
   Quinn, J.

As special administrator of the estate of Libor Ach, deceased, Stephen Ach filed his final account with the Shiawassee county probate court. This account, as amended, was allowed except for the amount of special administrator’s fees and expenses and the attorney fees for the special administrator. The probate judge took under advisement the decision on the amount of these fees and expenses but he never decided the amount of the fees and expenses. On appeal to the circuit court, the special administrator was allowed a fee of $100 and no expenses, and his attorney was allowed a fee of $225. The appeal to this Court followed.

CL 1948, §704.33 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev §27.3178 [284]) is controlling and provides in pertinent part as follows:

“Every guardian, testamentary trustee or special administrator shall be allowed the amount of his reasonable expenses incurred in the execution of his trust, and he shall also have such compensation for his services as the court in which his accounts are settled shall deem to be just and reasonable.”

On review of similar questions, our Supreme Court has consistently held,

“In the allowance of items of this character as a charge in favor of or against an executor a measure of discretion is vested in the trial court; and it is only when there appears to have been a manifest abuse of such discretion that the decision of the trial court will be overruled.” In re Baldwin’s Estate (1945), 311 Mich 288, 311.

This standard.was affirmed in In re Eddy Estate (1958), 354 Mich 334, 347.

The record before us does not establish a “manifest abuse of discretion” with respect to the fees allowed, nor does it do so with respect to disallowance of expenses claimed by the special administrator; The statute states “reasonable expenses incurred in the execution of his trust,” and from its action in disallowing any expenses, we infer the trial court found that none of the expenses claimed were reasonable within the context of the statute. A review of the record does not convince us such a finding was a manifest abuse of discretion, since the record fails to establish that the acts of the special administrator giving rise to the claimed fees and expenses were a necessity in the execution of his trust.

Affirmed, with costs to defendants.

T. Gr. Kavanagh, P. J., and McGregor, J., concurred.