Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/344/344mass307.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:57:24+00:00

Document:
GLORIA B. SULLIVAN, administratrix, vs. JOHN A. GOULETTE & another.
PETITION, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Middlesex on February 5, 1960, for the allowance of an account.
Selma R. Fox, (Daniel J. McGillicuddy & Daniel G. Rollins with her,) for the respondents.
Joseph J. Hurley, (Maurice R. Flynn, Jr., with him,) for the petitioner.
Jr., & W. Lincoln Boyden, by leave of court, submitted briefs as amici curiae.
CUTTER, J. These are appeals by Goulette and Mrs. McCaul, two of four children of Mrs. Corbett, who died intestate in 1954, from decrees of the Probate Court allowing (a) with modifications, the substituted first account of the administratrix (also a child of Mrs. Corbett) and (b) her petition for distribution. There is a report of material facts. The evidence is reported.
The estate consisted of $300 of tangible personal property. The administratrix, however, brought an action to enforce "a death claim for [the intestate's] accidental death . . . as the result of a fall." A jury in the Superior Court found for the plaintiff. In Sullivan v. Hamacher, 339 Mass. 190, this court overruled the defendant's exceptions. Upon an execution, $13,743 was paid, including costs and interest.
The main objections to the account were to Schedule B, item 7, a payment to Mr. Maurice R. Flynn, Jr. ($3,042.93) for "attorney's fee for prosecuting tort action," and item 8, a payment ($3,042.94) to Mr. Thomas E. Cargill, Jr. Item 2 was in the sum of $365, sought by Mr. Flynn as attorney for the estate. There were also objections to various subitems of item 9 involving reimbursement to Mr. Cargill of court costs, medical experts' fees, printing of brief, witness fees, and similar expenses of the tort action, including a payment to Mr. Joseph Hurley for "preparation of brief for Supreme Judicial Court, tort case: $780."
case and hence deserves a higher degree of compensation than the ordinary"; that "it necessitated a great deal of time, effort and detail to convince a jury towards a favorable verdict" and also a brief "on appeal"; but that "it was not such a technically involved case that . . . [it] necessitate[d] . . . retaining [in addition to Mr. Flynn] a specialist in the tort field."
The judge disallowed for payment to Mr. Flynn item 2 ($365) and item 7 ($3,042.93) and allowed to Mr. Flynn instead $4,900 for services rendered to the administratrix in the tort case. He disallowed item 8, the payment of $3,042.94 to Mr. Cargill entirely, in effect making it necessary for Mr. Flynn to take care of Mr. Cargill's fee. A decree to this effect was entered.
upon the amount recovered." The Massachusetts rule seems to be more strict than that set forth in Restatement: Contracts, Section 542 (1) and illustration 2. See Williston, Contracts (Rev. ed.) Section 1712; Corbin, Contracts, Section 1424.
judge could justifiably conclude that the amount of the fee was subject to the approval of the Probate Court, and that in essence it was an agreement for a contingent fee, which in any event was not to be more than reasonable compensation as determined by the court. Cf. Muldoon v. West End Chevrolet, Inc. 338 Mass. 91, 96. Cf. also Application of Kamerman, 278 F. 2d 411, 413-414 (2d Cir.); Restatement: Contracts, Section 545; Corbin, Contracts, Section 1426; Williston, Contracts (Rev. ed.) Section 1713, footnotes 3 and 4.
In our initial consideration of this case we entertained grave doubt whether the agreement for fees would be valid under the Massachusetts cases cited above. Few of the Massachusetts cases on champerty were decided very recently. We were of opinion that some consideration should be given to whether the principles stated in those cases are still appropriate in the light of modern conditions. See Eleventh Report of the Judicial Council (1935), Pub. Doc. 144, p. 36. Accordingly, the case was set down for oral reargument on specific issues relating to the lawyers' fees and we gave opportunity to bar associations and others to file briefs as amici curiae. We have been much assisted by several such briefs. Cf. Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 176-177. They propose reconsideration of the earlier decisions on champerty and contingent fees. Cf. Gair v. Peck, 6 N. Y. 2d 97. It may be that the subject should be dealt with by appropriate court rules. For the decision of the present case, however, it is sufficient to say that we are of opinion that, in the circumstances, the principles set forth in the earlier cases should not preclude payment of fair and reasonable compensation to Mr. Flynn. In reaching this conclusion we give special weight to the fact that the compensation to be paid is subject to the approval of the Probate Court. We perceive no considerations of public policy which require denial of all compensation.
in this court, a total of $7,230.87 from a gross estate of $14,043, including the tort judgment. The judge allowed $4,900 to Mr. Flynn and $780 to Mr. Hurley, a total of $5,680.
In the tort case, there were obstacles to a recovery and there was substantial likelihood of a verdict for the defendant. The practical chances that counsel would be paid anything, if there was no recovery, were slim indeed. After giving due weight to the decision of the probate judge, it cannot be said that he was plainly wrong.
3. It is also contended that the agreement between Mr. Flynn and the administratrix was illegal because Mr. Flynn had been counsel for the administratrix and her mother in one small earlier item of business and for the administratrix in taking out administration, and the contract for fees for services in the tort case was made without independent advice to the administratrix. As interpreted by the trial judge, the fee was subject to the approval of the Probate Court. The arrangement thus violated no prexisting fiduciary relationship.
4. It is further contended that the administratrix and Mr. Flynn failed to keep proper books or other accounts of the administration and of the proceeds of the death claim. The account first filed was inadequate and, as the probate judge pointed out, even the substituted account was somewhat deficient. The deficiencies, however, are now unimportant. The substituted account reveals adequately for all present purposes what funds were received and for what they were expended.
It has been argued that certain items of reimbursement of expenditures on the tort case by Mr. Flynn and Mr. Cargill were not sufficiently substantiated. There was little affirmative evidence specifically directed to these items. The administratrix, however, verified these items by general testimony. The judge's finding that these expenditures were proper, implied in his allowance of the account, was justified. See Bearse v. Styler, 309 Mass. 288, 291-292; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Corps. & Taxn. 339 Mass. 630, 632-633.
Reasonable expenses of recovery upon the wrongful death claim are properly deductible from the amount recovered thereon, notwithstanding the amendment by St. 1949, c. 427, Section 6, of G. L. c. 229, Section 6A, as theretofore amended through St. 1946, c. 614, Section 4. The 1949 amendment omitted [Note 1] an explicit earlier provision for charging (against sums recovered under c. 229) "reasonable costs and expenses of suit." Such expenses, if reasonable, must be met from some source. As has been pointed out above, an administratrix, in pressing a death claim under G. L. c. 229, is doing so in effect as trustee for the statutory beneficiaries. As trustee she is entitled to be exonerated for reasonable charges of executing her trust from the trust fund on usual trust principles. See Scott, Trusts (2d ed.) Sections 6.5, 17.5, 244.
5. There was no impropriety in the judge's denial of the motion that he disqualify himself. His report of material facts and the evidence reveal little more than that he commented upon friction among the parties prior to and at the hearing.
[Note 1] The legislative history of the 1949 amendment sheds no light on the reason for the omission. See 1949, Senate Bills, Nos. 657, 690. Cf. 1949 Senate Bills, Nos. 191, 192.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.