in Re Cary Estate
331287
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Marian I. Cary’s estate accounting was before the Branch Probate Court; Philip A. Cary served as personal representative.
- DHHS filed a claim against the estate (estate-recovery), which the personal representative initially disallowed in June 2014 based on then-uncertain law.
- Personal representative incurred attorney fees defending the DHHS claim, later accepting the claim after In re Keyes Estate clarified the law.
- Personal representative submitted detailed billing records, attorney CVs, and a market-rate survey to support reasonableness of fees; DHHS objected to reasonableness of attorney fees and separately contested personal representative and administrative fees.
- Probate court approved attorney fees as reasonable after an evidentiary hearing; it approved other administrative fees as submitted (DHHS had not properly objected).
- DHHS appealed, arguing inadequate proof of reasonableness and that the probate court failed to articulate findings on MRPC 1.5(a) factors; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Philip's Argument | DHHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were attorney fees reasonable? | Detailed billing, hourly rates, CVs, MSB survey, and hearing testimony justify rates and hours. | Time spent and some tasks were unreasonable; insufficient proof of reasonableness. | Fees were reasonable; probate court did not abuse discretion. |
| Was the PR entitled to fees for defending DHHS claim? | PR acted in good faith defending unsettled law; costs preserved estate interests. | DHHS argued some defense was unnecessary. | PR acted in good faith; MCL 700.3720 permits recovery of reasonable fees. |
| Were any fees "fees for fees" (not compensable)? | No; objection to fees was filed after final accounting so estate not charged for defending fee petition. | Some fees allegedly sought to obtain fees and thus not benefiting estate. | No fees-for-fees issue here; record shows defense of fee objection was not charged to estate. |
| Did the probate court need to state findings on each MRPC 1.5(a) factor on the record? | Court reviewed records, questioned PR about billing, addressed central factors (rate and hours); full factor-by-factor recital unnecessary. | Court failed to articulate findings on each MRPC 1.5(a) factor, requiring remand. | No remand; court sufficiently addressed key factors and its findings enabled review; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fast Air, Inc. v. Knight, 235 Mich. App. 541 (preservation of issues principle)
- Milligan v. Milligan, 197 Mich. App. 665 (appellate consideration of unpreserved issues)
- Smith v. Khouri, 481 Mich. 519 (framework for determining reasonable attorney fees: reasonable rate × reasonable hours)
- In re Temple Marital Trust, 278 Mich. App. 122 (standard of review for fee reasonableness and abuse of discretion)
- Pirgu v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 499 Mich. 269 (application of Smith framework where statute awards a "reasonable fee")
- In re Keyes Estate, 310 Mich. App. 266 (estate-recovery law clarified; prompted PR to accept DHHS claim)
- In re Sloan Estate, 212 Mich. App. 357 (fees-for-fees not compensable; compensable work must benefit or preserve estate)