MCL 700.543 [MSA 27.5543], MCL 700.541 [MSA 27.5541], MCL 700.826 [MSA 27.5826], MCL 700.809 [MSA 27.5809]; In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich. 334 [ 92 N.W.2d 458] (1958); In re Baldwin's Estate, 311 Mich. 288, 314 [ 18 N.W.2d 827] (1945); Detroit Trust Co v Blakely, 359 Mich. 621, 630 [ 103 N.W.2d 413] (1960); In re Grover's Estate, 233 Mich. 467, 473 [ 206 N.W. 988] (1926); Mann v Day, 199 Mich. 88, 97 [165 N.W. 643] (1917); 31 Am Jur 2d, Executors and Administrators, § 534, p 237. "Ms. James argues that attorney fees and expenses may not be awarded in the absence of express authorization by statute or court rule.
The plaintiff then would still have the burden to prove the validity of the lien. See Skyhook Lift-Slab Corp v Huron Towers, Inc, 369 Mich 36, 39; 118 NW2d 961 (1963) (stating the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirements necessary for a lien claim); In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich 334, 348; 92 NW2d 458 (1958) (recognizing that the party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of proving entitlement to those fees). MCL 570.1105(2).
The probate court's decision whether to permit trustee fees will not be overturned on appeal unless the decision constituted an abuse of discretion. In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich. 334, 347-348; 92 N.W.2d 458 (1958), supplemented on other grounds 356 Mich. 120 (1959) (citation omitted).
A trial court's decision whether to allow trustee fees will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. In re Eddy's Estate, 354 Mich 334, 347-348; 92 NW2d 458 (1958). MCL 700.
Under prior law, the burden rested on the trustee to prove the reasonableness of both its fees and the fees of counsel. See In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich 334, 348; 92 NW2d 458 (1958) (trustee, in filing its account with the court, had the burden of proving its claim for legal fees). This is consistent with caselaw placing the burden of establishing reasonableness of attorney fees on the party claiming them when the attorney fees are sought as the costs of litigation or as an element of damages.
MRE 401. See and compare In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich. 334, 351-352; 92 N.W.2d 458 (1958); Becht v Miller, 279 Mich. 629, 641; 273 N.W. 294 (1937); Babbitt v Bumpus, 73 Mich. 331; 41 N.W. 417 (1889). We now turn to Mason's, cross-appellant's, arguments.
The burden of proof is on the person claiming compensation. In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich. 334, 348; 92 N.W.2d 458 (1958). The claimant must satisfy the court that the services rendered were necessary and that the charges therefor are reasonable.
See, e.g., In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich. 334, 347-348; 92 N.W.2d 458 (1958). The probate court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order additional compensation for extraordinary services.
The burden of proving fees rests upon the claimant of those fees. See In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich. 334, 348; 92 N.W.2d 458 (1958). When plaintiff challenged the reasonableness of the fee requested, the trial court should have inquired into the services actually rendered by the attorney before approving the bill of costs.
The value of disputed attorney services is a matter vested in the probate court's discretion, and only when there is a manifest abuse of that discretion will such a decision be overruled on appeal. In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich. 334, 347-348; 92 N.W.2d 458 (1958). We are not convinced that the probate court's decision to value counsel's services at $6,500 constituted a manifest abuse of discretion. It is apparent that the court reflected upon all of the factors pertinent to a proper valuation decision.