Opinion ID: 1960024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lukas's Motion For Fees

Text: [¶ 26] Lukas contends that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for attorney fees incurred during the will contest. In denying the motion, the court stated that Lukas's actions in offering the holographic will for formal probate were dilatory and calculated to protect himself, rather than to benefit the estate. In Estate of Voignier, 609 A.2d 704 (Me.1992), we clarified the section 601 phrase as justice requires by concluding that an award of fees is warranted when the litigation in question benefitted the estate. Id. at 708. The policy rationale for allowing recovery of fees and costs pursuant to this standard is to discourage speculative claims or nuisance actions. See Estate of Wright, 637 A.2d at 110. [¶ 27] In this case, Lukas was aware that when the holographic will was drafted, McCormick's testamentary capacity was highly questionable. Nevertheless, he allowed McCormick to draft the will, petitioned for formal probate of the will, and then voluntarily abandoned that petition when he realized its validity would not withstand scrutiny. Because Lukas was aware that the validity of the will was speculative, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lukas's request for fees. See id. at 109-10. [11]