Estate of Lopez

4 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Colyear

    10 Cal.App.3d 670 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 1 times

    Certainly investing, selling and exchanging assets, defending the trust against suits, instituting actions to protect the assets, and exercising the rights of shareholders are as much a part of the "management, care and preservation of said property" as are the other ordinary duties involved in the administration of the trust and collection of income. Appellant argues, however, that we must read into the testator's intent the law at the time of execution of the will and relies heavily on Estate of Kruce, 10 Cal.App.2d 426 [ 51 P.2d 1174], and Estate of Lopez, 79 Cal.App.2d 399 [ 179 P.2d 621], as well as the heretofore cited provisions of the Principal and Income Act. In Estate of Kruce, supra, it is held that the trial court did not err in charging to the corpus of the trust the trustees' compensation and attorneys' fees for services rendered in closing the trust and distributing the property after the life tenant's death where such services were performed for the benefit of the remaindermen and were not related to the management of the trust for the benefit of the life estate.

  2. Estate of Bissinger

    60 Cal.2d 756 (Cal. 1964)   Cited 37 times
    Commenting on predecessor statute

    It is also noted that where no question has arisen concerning a fee fixed by the trust instrument, the court sitting in probate has seemingly unchallenged jurisdiction to, and in practice does, upon adequate factual showing, award special compensation to trustees for extraordinary services. (See Estate of McLaughlin (1954) 43 Cal.2d 462, 465 [ 274 P.2d 868]; Estate of Lopez (1947) 79 Cal.App.2d 399, 403 [2] [ 179 P.2d 621]; Estate ofGriffith (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 651 [ 218 P.2d 149].) 2. Did the defense, through litigation, of the trustee's actsconstitute an exigency or emergency justifying an award ofcompensation to the trustee beyond that provided in the trustinstrument?

  3. Estate of Harrison

    103 Cal.App.2d 12 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)   Cited 2 times

    It does not provide an appeal from a decree of this type, so the rule is the same. ( Linstead v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.App.2d 9 [ 61 P.2d 355]; Gladding v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.2d 408 [ 60 P.2d 857]; see, also, Estate of Lopez, 79 Cal.App.2d 399 [ 179 P.2d 621].) QUESTIONS PRESENTED

  4. Estate of Griffith

    97 Cal.App.2d 651 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)   Cited 9 times

    There is a distinction between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" services for a testamentary trust with respect to the allowance of compensation. ( Estate of Lopez, 79 Cal.App.2d 399, 403 [ 179 P.2d 621]; Estate of Lair, 52 Cal.App.2d 222, 225 [ 126 P.2d 133]; Estate of Kruce, 10 Cal.App.2d 426, 430 [ 51 P.2d 1174].) In the instant case each of the first 18 accounts dealt with compensation to the trustee only so far as ordinary services were concerned.