Opinion
J-A01022-19 No. 1801 EDA 2018
02-15-2019
IN RE: ESTATE OF ANITA M. MOON, DECEASED APPEAL OF: KEITH MOON, ALEXIS HANNAH MOON AND TARA STACI MOON
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Adjudication Entered May 25, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Orphans' Court at No(s): No. 2013-E0537 BEFORE: OTT, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:
Keith Moon, Alexis Hannah Moon, and Tara Staci Moon (Appellants) appeal from the Adjudication entered May 25, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. The orphans' court's Adjudication of the Second and Final Account of First National Bank of Newtown (FBN), Executor of the Estate of Anita M. Moon, Deceased (Estate), confirmed the Account and overruled the objections of Sheryl Moon and Appellants that sought reimbursement from the Estate for attorney fees and costs. Based upon the following, we affirm on the basis of the orphans' court's well-reasoned opinion.
The orphans' court's decision was an Adjudication. See Pa.O.C.R. 2.9.
Sheryl Moon has not filed an appeal.
The orphans' court has set forth the background of this case in its opinion, and therefore we need not discuss it here. See Orphans' Court Opinion, 8/10/2018, at 1-5. The sole question raised in this appeal is framed by Appellants, as follows:
Whether Keith, who retained legal counsel to challenge the validity of changes to the structure of certain of the decedent's assets that removed those assets from her probate estate, and who was successful in returning assets to the Estate, thereby creating a fund for the benefit of the Estate as a whole, is entitled to recover his attorneys' fees and costs from the Estate?Appellants' Brief at 3.
Appellants timely complied with the order of the orphans' court to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal.
The principles that guide our review of this claim are well settled:
The general rule is that each party to adversary litigation is required to pay his or her own counsel fees. In the absence of a statute allowing counsel fees, recovery of such fees will be permitted only in exceptional circumstances. One of the exceptional situations in which counsel fees may be recovered is where the work of counsel has created a fund for the benefit of many. This rule was stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in The Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert , 444 U.S. 472, 100 S.Ct. 745, 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980), as follows:
"[A] litigant or a lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee from the fund as a whole . . . . The common-fund doctrine reflects the traditional practice in courts of equity . . . and it stands as a well-recognized exception to the general principle that requires every litigant to bear his own attorney's fees . . . . The doctrine rests on the perception that persons who obtain the benefit of a lawsuit without contributing to its cost are unjustly enriched at the successful litigant's expense." (Citations omitted).
Id. at 478, 100 S.Ct. at 749, 62 L.Ed.2d at 681-682.
It is fundamental that an attorney seeking compensation from an estate has the burden of establishing facts which show that he or she is entitled to such compensation. The allowance or disallowance of counsel fees rests generally in the judgment of the auditing judge, and his or her findings of fact, approved by the court en banc and supported by competent evidence, are binding on appeal. The judgment of the auditing judge regarding the allowance or disallowance of counsel fees will not be interfered with except for abuse of discretion or, as some cases express it, palpable error.Estate of Wanamaker , 460 A.2d 824, 825-26 (Pa. Super. 1983) (most citations omitted).
The facts and factors to be taken into consideration in determining the fee or compensation payable to an attorney include: the amount of work performed; the character of the services rendered; the difficulty of the problems involved; the importance of the litigation; the amount of money or value of the property in question; the degree of responsibility incurred; whether the fund involved was "created" by the attorney; the professional skill and standing of the attorney in his profession; the results he was able to obtain; the ability of the client to pay a reasonable fee for the services rendered; and, very importantly, the amount of money or the value of the property in question.In re LaRocca Estate , 246 A.2d 337, 339 (Pa. 1968).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable C. Theodore Fritsch, Jr., we conclude Appellants' issue warrants no relief. Further, the orphans' court's opinion cogently discusses the question presented herein. See Orphans' Court Opinion, 8/10/2018, at 5-7 (finding: Appellants' settlement with Sheryl Moon did not benefit the Estate as a whole by a sum of over one million dollars since Sheryl Moon and Appellants were the sole beneficiaries and the beneficiaries' agreement that Sheryl Moon would pay Appellants $550,000.00 to bring an end to the litigation benefitted no beneficiaries aside from Appellants; the practical impact of the settlement reached by Sheryl Moon and Appellants was a direct payment to Appellants for Appellants' sole benefit; Appellants' unsuccessful surcharge claim against FBN depleted the Estate of $135,281.82, the sum paid to FBN from the Estate by way of settlement; and, finally, by overruling both Sheryl Moon and Appellants' objections to the Second and Final Account, additional monies remained in the Estate to be distributed equally, per the decedent's intent under the will, to both Sheryl Moon and Appellants). We agree with the orphans' court's analysis and conclude no further elaboration is warranted. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the orphans' court's opinion.
In the event of further proceedings, the parties are directed to attach a copy of the orphans' court's August 10, 2018, opinion to this memorandum.
Adjudication affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/15/19
Image materials not available for display.