Court Opinion

ID: 9694033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:19:17.352868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:54.643240
License: Public Domain

GOODWYN, Justice
(dissenting).
I concur in the majority opinion, except that part which approves the allowance for expenses.
The revised statement of expenses is in the amount of $10,374.78. The trial court allowed $5,187.39, which is exactly one-half of that claimed. The decree does not disclose how this amount was arrived at, other than the expression in the court’s opinion “that the claim of petitioner for expenses-incurred by him in connection with the rendition of said services in the amount of $10,374.78 is excessive, ahd that only one-half of said amount, namely: $5,187.39' should be approved and allowed.”
The appellants complain that there is no-legal evidence to- support the award. Appellee insists that there is no basis for reducing the claim; that under the proof he is. entitled to all of it or none. As stated in brief of appellee’s counsel: “If the proof offered by appellee in an effort to recover the unpaid balance of his expenses was insufficient, it appears that the court would have been justified in denying such recovery.”
There was considerable evidence offered’ in support of the attorney’s fee, as indicated' in the majority opinion. But the same cannot be said with respect to the expenses. The evidence as to expenses consists of a. verified statement of account and oral testimony of appellee. There were no vouchers, or other written evidence filed or presented in support of the account. Moreover, its-correctness was denied by appellants.
The statement covers the period from 1941 to April 19, 1950. For each of the years 1941 through 1944 there is a showing of “estimated expenses” totaling $600 and-embracing such items as “telephone $25.-00”, “trip to New Orleans in May $100.00”,. “10 trips to Montgomery during April,. May and June $100:00”. For the period from January 22, 1945, through April 19,. 1950, there is a generalized tabulation under-five headings, as follows: “steno.”, “lawyers”, “trips”, “telephone and telegrams”,, and “mise.” Under the heading “steno.” there are forty-seven separate entries,, totaling $1,338.26; under “lawyers”, eighteen entries, totaling $1,370.30; under “trips”, sixty-one entries, totaling $2,980.-06; under “telephone and telegrams”, fifty entries for a .total of $792.34; and under .“mise.”, thirty-eight entries totaling $518.-82. There is also a separate tabulation, of “accrued expenses” totaling $2,775, as. *473follows: “W. D. Partlow, Jr., $1,550.00”; '“Orville Rush $600.00 (facilitating depositions & passport)”; “Winston Withers $125.00 (Hale County abstract)”; “use of automobile (approx.) $500.00.”
If appellee is entitled to recover his •expenses, on the basis of a separate account therefor, he certainly should meet the proof required of the administrator in settling his account. For it is noted that the administrator advanced to appellee .'$7,500 on expenses, and the court, in its ■decree, credited the allowance of $5,187.-.39 on this advance. The effect, then, was to approve such expenditure by the administrator to the extent of the allowance. Although the administrator may be allowed his “actual expenses,” Code 1940, Tit. 61, § 377, he “must produce satisfactory proof of the correctness of each item on the credit side of the account”. Tit. 61, § 302. And this latter section places on the administrator the burden of proving the correctness of the items of credit, where objections are filed thereto. Hines v. Baldwin, 211 Ala. 322, 100 So. 466.
I have carefully examined the record and have read the testimony offered in support of the expense account. I am not persuaded that appellee has met the burden which is his of proving the correctness of the account. Suffice it to quote his testimony as elicited by his counsel:
“Q. Did you receive any reimbursement for any expenses you incurred? A. Yes, sir, $7,500.00.
“Q. Did you file an account of expenses? A. Not at that time. I was .simply estimating expenses.
“Q. Have you since filed an account ■of expenses? A. Yes.
“Q. What is the balance due on •expenses? A. The expenses enumerated are those I know about. Quite a bit of money, I kept no record of. 'This is what I have a record of, except ’41 thru ’45 I didn’t have a separate tabulation on that. I have a figure here of $10,374.78, leaving a balance of •$2,874.78.
“Q. Is that a revised or corrected statement of those expenses? A. Yes, sir.
“Petitioner offers in evidence petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1’ which is the same as the exhibit to petition set forth on pages 7 to 14 inclusive of this transcript, except that there is a credit of $385.00 as a refund on trips which reduced the total expenses for trips to $2,980.06. * * *
“Q. Are there some changes? A. Yes, good deal less. * * *
“Q. I will ask you if you have prepared an outline or statement of services rendered by you for which you claim compensation? A. Yes, but you haven’t finished that last question. * * *
“Q. With reference to those expenses set out in your account, were they all spent by you incidental to your defense of these various matters and litigation and obtaining the amendments to laws and to traveling expenses for the estate on those different trips ? A. It would be hard to draw a line of traveling expenses, what constitute necessary expenses. You’re working on a case, and the time you’re going to a football game or nightclub, well—
“Q. Did you attempt to separate it? A. No, sir.
“Q. Have you done so in your revised statement? A. No.
“Q. Were those expenses of the estate? A. I’d rather have the court pass on that. I don’t know.
“Q. Have you set out each item? A. Yes, sir, but when I take a trip I don’t say what it cost to go to a restaurant or go to a football game. All I know is what the trip cost.
“Q. So you just charge the entire amount? A. Yes, sir, I don’t mind paying my part of it.
“Q. Have you .books and records and vouchers to substantiate those items? A. I have from 1945. On *474back of 1945 it is just a question of picking out an item here and there that I could positively identify.
“Q. You think you spent far more prior to that time than you itemized? A. I know I did.
“Q. Were your expenses reasqnably incurred in the interest and on behalf of this estate? A. That would be a hard question to answer fairly.
“Q. What part would there be if you eliminated the pleasure part? A. I would have to do some thinking about that.”
I would reverse and remand as to the allowance for expenses.