Court Opinion

ID: 9647757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:49:39.436135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:53.151019
License: Public Domain

WARD, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment of the trial Court, but, with the facts present before us, I would put the basis as Section 241(a), and that the Court thereunder was empowered to award the Co-Administrators a reasonable compensation for their services. The application by the Co-Administrators and the testimony, the entire hearing for that matter, was that they were entitled to more money than that allowed under the first sentence of Section 241(a) regarding the statutory percentage. The Appellants make no complaint as to the pleadings or to the lack of any finding in the Court’s order that there be a preliminary finding that the percentage method be “unreasonably low.” Such a presumed finding was made. The Appellants rely in the main on the earlier cases that required the establishment of an “exceptional case” before the administrator could receive additional compensation. Shirey v. Harris, 288 S.W.2d 315 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1956, no writ), and Dallas Joint-Stock Land Bank in Dallas v. Maxey, 112 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1937, no writ). Those cases are no longer controlling, and, as pointed out in the interpretive commentary accompanying the statute, the Court is now afforded flexibility in fixing a reasonable compensation.