From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barth Estate

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 15, 1951
84 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1951)

Opinion

October 1, 1951.

November 15, 1951.

Guardian and ward — Incompetent — Guardian's commissions — Counsel fees — Amount — Discretion of court — Absence of objections — Investments — Act of July 2, 1935, P. L. 540.

1. Ordinarily, the amount of fees to be allowed counsel representing a guardian is one peculiarly within the discretion of the court of first instance, and its decision will not be interfered with except for palpable error.

2. Where no objections have been made by parties in interest who are all sui juris, a court performs its full duty when on its own motion it makes inquiries, suggests objections and calls for exceptions.

3. In this case, it was Held, on broad considerations, that the court below had erred in reducing the fees of counsel and the commissions of the guardian for an incompetent.

4. Under § 2 of the Act of July 2, 1935, P. L. 540, a fiduciary may invest moneys in any investment in which, at the time, a fiduciary subject to the jurisdiction of the orphans' court of any county may invest.

Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, RENO, DITHRICH, ROSS, ARNOLD and GUNTHER, JJ.

Appeal, No. 189, Oct. T., 1951, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1947, No. 2661, in Estate of Louise F. Barth, a person of incompetent mind. Decree reversed.

Audit of second and final account of guardian for incompetent. Before KUN, P.J.

Decree entered disallowing in part claim for counsel fees and guardian's commissions and surcharging guardian. Guardian appealed.

William Jay Leon, for appellant.

No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.


Argued October 1, 1951.


Did the court below err in reducing guardian's commissions and counsel's fee and in surcharging the guardian with the amount of such reductions?

Appellant was appointed guardian of the estate of Louise F. Barth, an incompetent, on November 21, 1947. The estate consisted of approximately $9,500 cash representing in part the proceeds of sale of real estate sold by the guardian. The ward died on February 13, 1951, and six days later the guardian filed his second and final account wherein he claimed credit for a payment of $500 additional counsel fee and a further credit of $475 as commissions for himself, being 5% of the amount of principal collected and managed by him. No objections were made by next of kin, but the court below on its motion and after considering a report of his services filed by counsel reduced counsel fees and the guardian's commissions to $200 each. The guardian has appealed from a decree surcharging him with the amount of such reductions.

Ordinarily, the amount of fees to be allowed counsel is one peculiarly within the discretion of the court of first instance, and its decision will not be interfered with except for palpable error. Rambo's Estate, 327 Pa. 258, 266, 193 A. 1; Harton's Estate, 331 Pa. 507, 523, 1 A.2d 292. Cf. Riebel's Estate, 321 Pa. 145, 184 A. 118; Pryor's Estate, 150 Pa. Super. 75, 27 A.2d 466. It is to be observed, however, that that rule obtains where exceptions have been filed by interested parties challenging the excessiveness of fees or commissions. Where, as here, no objections have been made by parties in interest who are all sui juris the court performs its full duty when, on its own motion, it makes inquiries, suggests objections and calls for exceptions. Stitzel's Estate, 221 Pa. 227, 70 A. 749. Cf. Franklin's Appeal, 163 Pa. 1, 29 A. 912; Newhall Appeal, 346 Pa. 518, 521, 31 A.2d 127.

The court below also took the guardian to task for investing in preferred stock without prior court approval. The court below failed to give recognition to the Act of July 2, 1935, P. L. 540, 20 PS Sec. 815 which was in effect when investments in the instant case were made. Under Section 2 of the Act of 1935, supra, it is clearly provided that "Any such fiduciary, holding moneys to be invested, may invest such moneys in any investment in which, at that time, a fiduciary subject to the jurisdiction of the orphans' court of any county of this Commonwealth may invest like moneys". Cf. Pauer Estate, 351 Pa. 350, 41 A.2d 675; Fiduciary Review, April, 1945.

On broad considerations, the court below erred in reducing the fees of counsel and the commissions of the accountant. The management of the estate extending over a three year period was faithful, constant, successful and beneficial to the ward; the proofs are most satisfactory that the fees and commissions have been earned in proportion to the responsibilities incurred and the labor and care bestowed. McElhenny's Appeal, 46 Pa. 347.

Decree reversed, costs to be paid by the estate.


Summaries of

Barth Estate

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 15, 1951
84 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1951)
Case details for

Barth Estate

Case Details

Full title:Barth Estate

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 15, 1951

Citations

84 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1951)
84 A.2d 256

Citing Cases

Dorsett v. Hughes

Lohm Estate, 440 Pa. 268, 269 A.2d 451 (1970). See also Barth Estate, 170 Pa. Super. 163, 84 A.2d 256 (1951);…