{"id":10848,"date":"2020-04-20T21:19:21","date_gmt":"2020-04-20T21:19:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/?p=10848"},"modified":"2020-04-20T21:20:19","modified_gmt":"2020-04-20T21:20:19","slug":"substantial-benefit-doctrine-as-a-basis-for-fees-in-california-probate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/substantial-benefit-doctrine-as-a-basis-for-fees-in-california-probate\/","title":{"rendered":"Substantial Benefit Doctrine As A Basis For Fees In California Probate"},"content":{"rendered":"
The substantial benefit doctrine permits a California probate court to award attorney\u2019s fees to a party if the party\u2019s efforts in the litigation result in a substantial benefit to other parties.\u00a0 The benefits do not have to be pecuniary.<\/p>\n
The substantial benefit doctrine was applied for the first time in a California probate<\/a> case in Smith v. Szeyller<\/a>, a January 2019 opinion from California\u2019s Second District Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n Don Smith, Jr. and Gladys Smith created a family trust.\u00a0 Their five children were named as the beneficiaries of the trust.\u00a0 Don died before Gladys.\u00a0 After Don\u2019s death, Gladys amended the trust many times to benefit one of their children, Joann.<\/p>\n After Gladys\u2019 death, Joann and her husband became the co-trustees of the trust.\u00a0 Joann\u2019s brother Don filed a petition demanding an accounting of the trust and alleged several breaches of trust against Joann and her husband.\u00a0 All of the other siblings were named in the proceedings and given notice of Don\u2019s action, but none of them participated in the probate proceedings.<\/p>\n The litigation settled in the middle of trial.\u00a0 In the settlement, the trustees agreed, among other things, to pay a sum to Don from Joann\u2019s share of the trust, and to pay Don\u2019s $721,258.28 in attorney\u2019s fees and costs from the trust and its subtrusts (meaning the subtrusts of the nonparticipating beneficiaries bore a portion of this amount).\u00a0 The settlement agreement was approved by the California probate court.<\/p>\n After the California probate court approved the settlement, one of the other siblings, Donna (who had not participated in the litigation until this point, despite receiving notice), filed post-trial motions asking for a new trial and to vacate the order. \u00a0She argued that the fee award to Don was not warranted under the substantial benefit doctrine, and that she was not afforded due process.<\/p>\n The California probate court denied Donna\u2019s motions and the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.<\/p>\n The substantial benefit doctrine in California permits a trial court to award fees to be shared by others upon whom a benefit was conferred when a litigant, proceeding in a representative capacity, obtains a decision that results in a substantial benefit.\u00a0 The substantial benefit can be of a pecuniary or nonpecuniary nature.\u00a0 The court explained the substantial benefit doctrine as follows:<\/p>\n Trust beneficiaries must generally pay their own attorney’s fees incurred challenging a trustee’s conduct, even if they succeed. (Leader v. <\/em>Cords\u00a0(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1588, 1595 [107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 505];\u00a0Code Civ. Proc., \u00a7 1021.)\u00a0But under the substantial benefit exception, the trial court may exercise its \u201cequitable discretion \u2026 [to] determine[] whether the interests of justice require those who received a benefit\u00a0to contribute to the legal expenses of those who secured the benefit.\u201d (Pipefitters\u00a0Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan v. Oakley, Inc., supra<\/em>, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 1547.)\u00a0The doctrine is an \u201coutgrowth\u201d of the common fund doctrine. (Serrano v. Priest<\/em>\u00a0(1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 38 [141 Cal. Rptr. 315, 569 P.2d 1303].)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe Facts of Smith v. Szeyller<\/h2>\n
What Is The Substantial Benefit Doctrine?<\/h2>\n