A probate court had authority to charge approximately $226,000 in attorney fees generated defending a trustee’s proposed sale of an asset solely against the shares of the minority of beneficiaries who brought the challenge in bad faith, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
Reasoning that a Kern County judge had the equitable power to make the award, the court on Thursday upheld an order reducing the shares of three beneficiaries who sought to keep the trustee from closing the $48 million sale of a ranch on time.
Kern Superior Court Judge Robert S. Tafoya made the award against Philip Rudnick, Robert Rudnick and Milton Rudnick after concluding it was unfair to burden the majority of beneficiaries who approved the sale by a vote of 60 percent.
The three beneficiaries claimed that the Rudnick Estates Trust’s principal asset—the 68,000-acre Onyx Ranch, located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains just outside of Bakersfield—was worth substantially more than $48 million, that the trustee violated his fiduciary duty and that the transaction violated the terms of the RET.
But Tafoya determined that their opposition was primarily for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay and in bad faith.
The case is Rudnick v. Rudnick, 09 S.O.S. 6928.
Full Article and Source:
Court of Appeal Upholds Fee Award Against Disgruntled Beneficiaries
3 comments:
My lawyer told me once that the judge ALWAYS pays the guardian and the lawyers.
There are three sides to every story: The judge's, the parties' and - THE TRUTH.
We'll never know because judges do their own damn thing! Is there a quid pro quo?
Lawyering is the most profitable business there is. Where else can you bill a quarter hour for placing a call and getting a busy signal? And the thing is, the judges just get out their rubber stamp and approve the fees with barely a nod and rarely a glance at them.
Post a Comment