Opinion ID: 2331585
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 33

Heading: Trial Court's Exercise of Its Limited Discretion

Text: When Elliott filed his second request for compensation, he was seeking an award for the litigation support services he personally performed for the attorneys hired by the estate. Elliott implicitly acknowledged the trial court's limited discretion in his second request by requesting compensation for services which he couched as unusual costs, rather than as personal services, on the ground that Delaney could not have anticipated that Elliott would find himself embroiled in the extensive litigation of Elliott v. Valentine and Patton v. Elliott. Throughout his request, however, Elliott consistently referred to the paralegal work he did under the direction of the estate attorneys as services. (Elliott never claimed that his paralegal services constituted daily expenses, which may be compensated under the will.) Furthermore, there was nothing in the second request or its addendum that clearly delineated what was unusual about the costs Elliott had listed. We find no abuse of the trial court's limited discretion in its ruling that the costs sought in the second request were for Elliott's personal services, and that therefore the request was barred under both the July 31 will and the 1994 order. The trial court's order of December 13, 1999, denying appellant Elliott's request for compensation is affirmed.