Opinion ID: 1849092
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellants complain of the allowances of $1,500 to Mr. Blake, attorney for Elmer as executor, and $750 to Elmer.

Text: One ground of complaint against the allowance to Blake is that he orally agreed with Elmer to accept $200. There is substantial evidence this sum was to be paid merely for the preliminary work of probating the will and preparing the inventory. Apparently the court found this is the fact. There is insufficient basis for us to reduce the fees of Mr. Blake to $200. The main objection to an allowance to Blake grows out of his appearance as cocounsel with Mr. Karr's firm for Gaylord in the equity action. This is said to have been a representation of an interest adverse to the estate because of which Blake should be denied any compensation. As previously indicated, the main complaint against any allowance to Elmer is that he conspired with Gaylord to commence the equity action with knowledge it lacked merit. It appears Elmer, the oldest son, was more familiar with his father's business than his brothers were. Elmer lives in Iowa, the others in Oklahoma or Texas. Elmer, a banker, seems to have done most of the nonlegal work of settling the estate. The court found Elmer has carried on the administration of the estate and has done a good job with minor exceptions. He has filed his final report which is true and correct in all particulars save one,  . Alone he has performed nearly all the executors' ordinary work and little more needs to be done. The one particular just referred to is the payment of $1,295 of income taxes he should not have paid. It is not intimated the payment was not made in good faith. The court refused to credit him with this payment but charged him with it. It was stipulated the reasonable value of Elmer's services was $1,175 but the propriety of paying him because of his claimed adverse interest was reserved. In June, 1951, Mark wrote his mother, brothers and sister Elmer should have $25 per month during his handling of the estate. The court found Elmer's services reasonably worth $1,000Blake's $2,000. These amounts, however, were reduced to $750 and $1,500 respectively because Elmer did not resign after Gaylord brought the equity action and Blake appeared for Gaylord therein. As explained in Division II hereof, the court found Elmer did not foment the equity suit but tried to avert it and that he caused no loss to the estate. Substantial evidence supports these findings. There is therefore no room for application of the rule appellants urge that fomenting vexations and unnecessary litigation resulting in waste of estate funds is a ground for refusing compensation to an executor. It is perhaps true Elmer should have resigned as executor after Gaylord brought the equity action in which Elmer's financial interest was with Gaylord. But his failure to resign did not necessarily deprive him of the right to any compensation. At most Elmer committed a breach of trust in not resigning. Restatement, Trusts, section 243, states: If the trustee commits a breach of trust, the court may in its discretion deny him all compensation, or allow him a reduced compensation or allow him full compensation. Comment c to section 243 says these factors are to be considered: whether the trustee acted in good faith, whether the breach of trust was intentional or negligent or without fault, whether the breach related to the management of the whole trust or only part of it, whether the breach occasioned loss, and whether the trustee's services were of value to the trust. We find no abuse of discretion in the court's failure to deny all compensation to Elmer upon the ground urged by appellants. See as tending to support our conclusion In re Healy's Estate, 137 Cal. 474, 70 P. 455. The rule of law upon which appellants rely in resisting any allowance to Blake is that an attorney is not permitted to represent adverse interests growing out of the same transaction and where he does so he cannot recover for his services unless he acted with consent of the parties after a full disclosure of the facts. See 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, § 167b, pages 1024, 1025; 5 Am.Jur., Attorneys at Law, section 170; Fraser v. Crounse, D.C.MunApp., 56 A.2d 54; Moffett Bros. Partnership Estate v. Moffett, 345 Mo. 741, 137 S.W.2d 507; W. C. Turnbow Petroleum Corp. v. Fulton, Tex.Civ.App., 199 S.W.2d 263. See also Whitcomb v. Collier, 133 Iowa 303, 310, 110 N.W. 836. Mr. Blake's testimony in justification of his appearance as cocounsel for Gaylord in the equity action is that after reading the decisions he thought were applicable and preparing a brief on the subject he reached the good faith opinion the controversy was between the individual heirs in which the executors as such were not interested. Therefore Blake says he felt he was not representing an interest adverse to the executors. As stated in Division I, the court held the action was at least in part between individual claimants to the land and we have approved the holding. If Mr. Blake was in fact representing an adverse interest without consent of the parties by appearing for Gaylord in the equity action his good faith or honesty in so doing does not entitle him to compensation. Fraser v. Crounse, supra, and citations; In re Pfiffner's Guardianship, Mo. App., 194 S.W.2d 233, 236; 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, § 167b, page 1024; 5 Am.Jur., Attorneys at Law, section 64. Whether an attorney for an executor may act for one of the heirs in a proceeding involving property of the estate depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. Jones v. Lamont, 118 Cal. 499, 50 P. 766, 767, 62 Am.St.Rep. 251; Logan v. Logan, 97 Ind.App. 209, 180 N.E. 32, 34. Among the circumstances here is the fact appellants apparently never considered Mr. Blake was attorney for any of them in the settlement of this estate from the beginning they were represented by attorneys of their own choice. We are cited to no decisions upon comparable facts which support a denial of all compensation to Mr. Blake because of his appearance as cocounsel for Gaylord in the equity action. The precedents we have found are against appellants on this branch of the case. Under generally similar circumstances it has been held not to be a violation of professional duty for an attorney for an executor to appear for one of the heirs in a controversy with the other heirs such as the equity action brought by Gaylord. In re Healy's Estate, supra, 137 Cal. 474, 70 P. 455, 456; McCabe v. Healy, 138 Cal. 81, 70 P. 1008; Logan v. Logan, supra, 97 Ind.App. 209, 180 N.E. 32, 34. See also In re Schield's Estate, supra, Mo.Sup., 250 S.W.2d 151, 156; Grauberger v. Light, 127 Cal.App. 576, 16 P.2d 188, 189. It appears Mr. Blake was not employed to appear for Gaylord in the equity action until May or June, 1951, nearly two years after the estate was opened, at a time when much of his work was done. There can be no claim Blake represented any adverse interest until he was employed by Gaylord or after that employment terminated. The decisions seem to hold Blake would at least be entitled to be paid for services rendered by him while not representing Gaylord. Moffett Bros. Partnership Estate v. Moffett, supra, 345 Mo. 741, 137 S.W.2d 507, 512; In re Schield's Estate, supra, Mo.Sup., 250 S.W.2d 151, 157, 158; In re Pfiffner's Guardianship, supra, Mo. App., 194 S.W.2d 233, 236-238. See also Beerly v. Wm. Meyer Co., 332 Ill.App. 653, 75 N.E.2d 783. Of course Mr. Blake is not asking the estate to pay for anything he did for Gaylord in the equity action. It appears Gaylord has paid him nothing for his services in that action. Blake testified the reasonable value of his services for the estate was $5,300, including about $50 expense. Mr. Leming, witness also for appellants, fixed such value at between $6,000 and $7,000. It is not contended the allowance to Blake is excessive if he is entitled to any compensation from the estate and if he did not agree to a fee of $200. We are not inclined to interfere with the allowance to him of $1,500. V. Finally, appellants say the court erred in not allowing Mark as executor $1,500 rather than $500 which was allowed. The argument is based on an oral stipulation between counsel for appellants and appellee Elmer that the reasonable value of Mark's fees and expenses as executor be set at $1,500 and charged as part of the costs. The court announced he would give consideration to the stipulation but did not feel bound by itthe allowance of fees is for the court. The attorneys seem to have acquiesced in this announcement. At least the record shows no disagreement with it. It was also stipulated at the same time that the reasonable value of Elmer's services was $1,175, as stated in Division IV hereof. Notwithstanding the stipulation the court found such value to be only $1,000 and he allowed Elmer $750. Mark's application for an allowance to himself states he made nine trips by automobile from his home in Oklahoma City to Hardin and Hamilton counties to consult his attorneys and appear at the trials. There was only one trial. Mark's first trip to Iowa was more than two months after the will contest had been dismissed. Mark claims mileage at seven cents a mile, expenses of $9 and compensation of $25 for each day he was away from home for the purposes aforesaid. $945 of Mark's claim is for mileage. We find no evidence in support of the claim. His counsel were apparently content to leave the amount of allowance for Mark to the court's discretion on the strength of the stipulation the court said he would consider. It is true, as appellants argue, we have said the administrator or his attorney and the adult heirs or beneficiaries of an estate may agree upon the compensation of the administrator or attorney, where rights of creditors and perhaps of minors are not involved. Ordinarily the amount so agreed upon will be allowed. In re Estate of Hale, 231 Iowa 1018, 1025, 2 N.W.2d 775, 780, and citations. See also 34 C.J.S., Executors and Administrators, § 870; 21 Am.Jur., Executors and Administrators, section 527. Other authorities say the amount so agreed upon will be very influential in fixing the amount of compensation. In re Stewart's Estate, 145 Or. 460, 28 P.2d 642, 91 A.L.R. 818, 826. In the Hale case, supra, the executor agreed with the interested beneficiary to accept a certain fee which was allowed and accepted on the former's sworn applications. He later sought without success to recover a larger amount notwithstanding his executed agreement. The decision is based in part upon the conclusion the allowance was adequate as well as pursuant to agreement. We are not disposed, by reason of the stipulation as to the value of Mark's fees and expenses, to increase the allowance to him for at least two reasons. First, counsel apparently acquiesced in the court's announcement he did not feel bound by the stipulation but would consider it. We need not discuss the effect that should ordinarily be given such a stipulation. Second, neither Gaylord nor anyone for him was a party to the stipulation nor bound by it. Consequently there was no amount agreed upon between Mark and all those beneficially interested in the estate. The above authorities are therefore not applicable. We find no reversible error in any respect urged by appellants. Affirmed.