 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Estate of Murrell6/16/2005
Argued April 27, 2005
Before FARRELL and WASHINGTON, Associate Judges, and FERREN, Senior Judge.
This appeal involves a compensation award in the amount of $59,242.50 made to Gilda Wallace ("Wallace"), co-representative of Joane-Magda Murrell's estate, for extraordinary services rendered in the administration of the estate based upon a settlement of a wrongful death (medical malpractice) action. Because appellant, Magilene Murrell ("Murrell"), co-representative of the estate, the decedent's mother and heir to the estate, was entitled to a hearing and findings on whether the award of funds for extraordinary services was reasonable, we vacate the court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
On May 27, 2003, nearly seven years after the decedent's death, Wallace filed a petition for compensation for extraordinary services in the amount of $59,242.50 from the estate in accordance with D.C. Code §§ 20-107, -751 and -753 (2001), for services rendered as a co-representative that were "necessary for the benefit of the estate." Shortly thereafter, Murrell filed a response and objected to Wallace's petition, specifically alleging that "Wallace has unreasonably and duplicitously sought compensation in an outrageous manner for: ' esearch and review of publications, including newspapers and magazines, for information relating to blood clots and medical malpractice lawsuits.'" Despite Murrell's objection and without a hearing, the trial court granted Wallace's petition for compensation in an order dated July 8, 2003, without relating the compensation awarded to the factors contained in D.C. Code § 20-753 (b). On July 17, 2003, Murrell filed a motion to vacate the July 8 order and for specific enforcement of a settlement agreement -- the latter reflecting the fact that between June 18, 2003 and July 10, 2003, the parties were also engaging in negotiations to settle the issue of Wallace's request for additional compensation.
On September 9, 2003, the trial court issued an order indicating that it would consider the two issues separately. In that order, the trial court stated, " n October 15, 2003, we shall only address the issue of the settlement agreement. In the event the court concludes that there was no agreement, then a date will be selected to consider any additional issues." During the October 15 hearing, the parties only addressed issues relating to the enforcement of the proposed settlement agreement. In an order dated October 30, 2003, however, in addition to finding there was no settlement agreement between the parties, the trial court also denied Murrell's motion to vacate without giving Murrell a chance to present evidence challenging the reasonableness of the award of compensation . The trial court simply indicated that it would not vacate its July 8 order. Murrell appeals from this order.
On December 10, 2003, the trial court granted Wallace's motion to release funds from the court's registry. Subsequently, however, the trial court ordered that Wallace return the money to the estate because it realized that it had originally granted the motion to release funds from the court's registry in part because of its mistaken belief that the motion was unopposed. The trial court, however, never vacated its original order granting the compensation . The February 17, 2004 order requiring Wallace to return the money to the estate also stated that Wallace's failure to comply with the order would subject her to criminal contempt of court. Wallace cross-appeals from this order.
II.
According to D.C. Code § 20-753 (b), the trial court must consider the following factors when determining th
Page 1 2 3 District of Columbia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|