Opinion ID: 1247070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: abner's appeal

Text: The appeal of Abner presents two questions, namely: (1) Was the court justified in dividing his attorneys' fees  half for services rendered for him in his capacity as trustee, which was chargeable against the trust, and the other half in his capacity as managing agent, which was not chargeable to the trust? (2) Could the court on this record allow fees to the attorneys for Leonard and Marian? 4. The rule with respect to the rights of a beneficiary to recover attorneys' fees and expenses in such litigation is quite exhaustively covered in In re Living Trust Created by Atwood, 227 Minn. 495, 35 N.W. (2d) 736, 9 A.L.R. (2d) 1126. As there stated, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in good faith in litigation brought and prosecuted for the benefit of the estate may be allowed by the court. Not so if the issues are immaterial or trifling or if the party bringing the proceeding unnecessarily creates expense for the estate. Here the court found that the objections against Abner as trustee were unnecessary and of inconsequential benefit to the estate. Apparently no fees were allowed for such services. The court further found that the services accomplished something of benefit in bringing about the discontinuance of certain objectionable practices of the managing agent. It is also clear that the dissension which had existed between Abner and Leonard and which led to the resignation of the bank as cotrustee, if continued, would be a detriment to the estate. This dissension was brought to the attention of the court by the petition of the objectors for Abner's removal as trustee and as managing agent. More particularly, this objection probably related to his duties as managing agent. By procuring instructions from the court placing Irving H. Robitshek in a position of control, it is likely that this dissension will be eliminated, or at least it will not be permitted to harm the estate. To that extent the services have been of some value. The court may have been liberal in the amount of the allowance, but we do not think that the allowance is so liberal as to constitute a clear abuse of discretion. We hold that the fees allowed the attorneys for Marian and Leonard should be affirmed. 5. The more difficult question, and that most seriously urged by Abner, is whether the services of Abner's attorneys could be divided so as to charge half the fees to him as trustee and half as managing agent. There can be little doubt that he was acting in a dual capacity. Many, if not most, of the serious charges were leveled at him in his capacity as managing agent. In fact, the only charge established against him was in that capacity. While it is difficult to visualize this proceeding as being partly against him in one capacity and partly in another, it is apparent that, had he not been managing agent, many of the charges could not have been made against him at all and much of the litigation probably would have been unnecessary. He had a personal interest, quite apart from his interest as cotrustee, in defending against these charges. He was paid a salary of $6,000 per year as managing agent. It was of interest to him to retain that employment. Had the two positions been held by separate individuals and had the charges with which we are here concerned been brought against each, it seems obvious that both, if they wished to retain their respective positions, would have had to defend themselves. In fixing attorneys' fees to be allowed against a trust in cases of this kind, much must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. No hard-and-fast rule can be formulated which will permit the fixing of such fees by any mathematical formula. Where, as here, all parties prevail in part and are unsuccessful in part, the court must have some latitude in determining what shall be allowed. Even if it be conceded that Abner appeared before the court only in his capacity as trustee, it would follow that some of his practices were open to question. Upon such finding, the court could deny him part of his fees and allow him something where, as here, the court found that such practices were due to a mistake in judgment, not to any fraud, deceit, or bad faith. We think, however, that the court's finding that he appeared in his dual capacity is the better reasoning. As such, the court could find that part of his attorneys' services is properly chargeable to him in each capacity. [3] We think that the allowances made in all cases were within the reasonable discretion of the trial court, and the order as appealed is affirmed as to all appeals. The briefs in this case to submit the issues involved are so unnecessarily long that no costs are allowed to any party. Affirmed.