In Re ESTATE OF Hazel N. LEDFORD
2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 246
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Hazel Ledford died in 1991; her will, a joint holographic instrument with Wilson Ledford, left residuary to a charitable trust and named Martha Ledford Powell as Personal Representative.
- Ledford Family Trust owned property with underground storage tanks (USTs) causing soil contamination; remediation costs approached $350,000.
- Estate paid remediation costs after a meeting with beneficiaries, but the Hospital and fund objected to classifying remediation as an estate expense.
- In 1992, a document purported to allocate UST liability to the Estates and bind the Ledford Family Trust and Hospital; the Personal Representative signed for the Estate.
- The Personal Representative later sought court approval; the Clerk and Master’s report and the trial court’s ruling approved the accounting and some attorney’s fees.
- Appeal by the Objectors contends the remediation and certain fees were improper estate expenses; the Court of Appeals reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remediation costs were proper estate expenses | Ledford argues costs were not owned by the Estate. | Estate contends costs fall within the estate's liability due to ownership of tanks. | Remediation costs not properly chargeable to the Estate. |
| Whether Whitlock lacked authority to bind the Fund or Hospital | Whitlock acted with apparent authority binding the Fund. | Whitlock’s authority was not proven; actions bound only the Hospital, not Fund. | Whitlock lacked authority; no binding effect on the Fund; apparent authority did not extend. |
| Whether the Personal Representative could contract for remediation without court approval | Remediation contracts should have court approval; improper otherwise. | The Personal Representative acted with beneficiary consent and apparent authority. | No court approval; expenditures cannot stand. |
| Whether attorney’s fees were properly payable from the estate | Fees were for improper actions benefiting the Trust, not the Estate. | Fees were necessary estate administration costs. | Attorneys’ fees not properly payable from the Estate; must be refunded; some pre-final accounting fees limited. |
| Whether the Estate is entitled to fees for defending the appeal | Estate seeks appellate fees due to frivolousness of appeal. | Appeal was not frivolous; fees denied. | Denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625 (Tenn. 1999) (standard for reviewing legal conclusions de novo; facts reviewed deferentially)
- Cross v. City of Memphis, 20 S.W.3d 642 (Tenn. 2000) (standard for factual findings on bench trials)
- Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (abuse of discretion in discretionary decisions; factors to consider)
- In re Estate of Wallace, 829 S.W.2d 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (attorney's fees must be necessary and benefiting the estate)
- Boren ex rel. Boren v. Weeks, 251 S.W.3d 426 (Tenn. 2008) (apparent authority and principal's liability standards)
- Merchants & Planters Bank v. Myers, 644 S.W.2d 683 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982) (standard for reimbursement of attorney’s fees from estate)