Opinion ID: 2584878
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Superior Court's Decision To Reduce Dieringer's Estate Representative Fees Is Supported by the Evidence.

Text: Dieringer argues that the superior court erred in two ways: by failing to increase his award of personal representative fees and by reducing its prior award of fees. In light of our decision that the superior court's action in reducing the fees was justified, we have no reason to address Dieringer's claim that a larger fee should have been awarded. Alaska Statute 13.16.430 governs compensation for personal representatives. The statute provides in relevant part: A personal representative is entitled to reasonable compensation for services. While the statute does not expressly condition compensation on the representative's good faith actions, this requirement is encompassed by the statute's allowance for reasonable compensation. [30] The superior court vacated personal representative fees related to preparing for and defending the removal action, determining that these fees were not within the bounds of reasonable compensation. While Dieringer argues that the superior court did not explicitly find that he acted in bad faith, the superior court stated that these fees shall be disallowed as they were not fees incurred to benefit the estate or the beneficiaries. More specific bad faith language can be found in the superior court's consideration of attorney's fees, which also denied fees related to the defense of the removal petition, where the court explained: His defense was unsuccessful and on the major issues, he was found to have acted in bad faith. His actions in litigating against the beneficiary were not actions taken with the intent to benefit the beneficiaries. The superior court's decision to reduce Dieringer's personal representative fees is sound. The superior court only disallowed fees incurred after December 2000 because that was when the bad faith defense began. Dieringer's intentional bad faith actions as representative doomed the defense on the substantive conduct issues in the removal litigation. Reasonable compensation does not extend to a personal representative's unreasonable defense in removal litigation.