In re Coors Estate

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Evarts

    166 P.3d 161 (Colo. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    In general, when the contest is narrowed to one of personal interest between parties interested in an estate, attorney fees are not allowed. In re Estate of Coors, 140 Colo. 343, 347, 344 P.2d 184, 186 (1959). No allowance may be made out of the estate of a deceased person for services of an attorney not employed by the personal representative of the estate when the services are rendered for the sole benefit of individuals, though interested in the estate.

  2. In the Matter of Estate of Lewis

    93 P.3d 605 (Colo. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    However, attorney fees are only proper where the estate benefits from the action. In re Estate of Coors, 140 Colo. 343, 346, 344 P.2d 184, 185 (1959). Generally, attorney fees are awarded only to the personal representative.

  3. In re the Estate of Breeden v. Gelfond

    87 P.3d 167 (Colo. App. 2004)   Cited 11 times
    Applying Painter ’s "benefit rule" to conclude that an estate representative who was sued for work he performed in that capacity, and whose work benefited the estate, was "entitled to necessary expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees incurred in defending this action"

    See Morrison v. Watkins, 20 Kan. App. 2d 411, 889 P.2d 140 (1995) (trustee entitled under statute to recover expenses necessarily incurred in successfully defending actions as trustee, even when expenses are incurred after trustee's termination); In re Estate of Stenson, 243 Mont. 17, 792 P.2d 1119 (1990) (fees for work done on behalf of former personal representative were recoverable under similar statute); In re Estate of Flaherty, 484 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 1992) (no error in allowing former personal representative attorney fees for defending will contest). Relying on In re Estate of Painter, supra; Proudfit v. Coons, 137 Colo. 353, 325 P.2d 273 (1958); and In re Estate of Coors, 140 Colo. 343, 344 P.2d 184 (1959), petitioner contends that the "benefit rule" precludes respondent from recovering legal fees and unreimbursed costs incurred in the successful defense against a surcharge action. We disagree.

  4. In the Matter of Estate, Fryer

    874 P.2d 490 (Colo. App. 1994)   Cited 2 times

    However, in contrast to these situations in which the estate benefits from the action, "no allowance may be made out of the estate of a deceased person for the services of an attorney not employed by the personal representative of the estate where the services are rendered for the sole benefit of individuals, though interested in the estate." In re Estate of Coors, 140 Colo. 343, 346-47, 344 P.2d 184, 185-86 (1959). In Coors, the court found the hearing to be a contest between contending parties seeking to share in the estate rather than a construction of the will and declined to award attorney fees paid from the estate.

  5. In Matter of Estate of Phipps

    713 P.2d 412 (Colo. App. 1985)   Cited 2 times

    Under that rule generally no allowance may be made out of the estate for services of an attorney not employed by the personal representative of the estate if the services were rendered for the sole benefit of individuals, even though the individuals may have an interest in the estate. Estate of Coors v. International Trust Co., 140 Colo. 343, 344 P.2d 184 (1959). Here, Ms. Phipps was the sole individual to benefit from the litigation and settlement.

  6. Hill's Estate v. Warberg

    484 P.2d 121 (Colo. App. 1971)

    We agree with the general rule cited by defendants that no allowance may be made out of the estate for services of an attorney not employed by the personal representative of the estate where the services were rendered for the sole benefit of an individual or group of individuals interested in the estate. In re Coors' Estate, 140 Colo. 343, 344 P.2d 184. However, attorneys' fees of a beneficiary have been allowed where the proceedings to construe the will were initiated by the executor who caused the beneficiary to be cited for the hearing.