- 33 -
estate. Were we not to make this allocation, decedent’s gross
estate would be increased by the repaid fees, which in essence
would cause the $247,500 to be taxed twice.11
2. Amount Distributed to Glovers Under Plaintiffs’ Agreement
We now turn our attention to whether any part of the $750,000
settlement should be allocated to the Glovers’ claim, which would
have the effect of reducing decedent’s interest in the malpractice
claim.
The only claim made in the lawsuit that relates specifically
to the Glovers (rather than to Eckell, Sparks’s malpractice in the
preparation of the will or in connection with the administration of
the estate) is count II. In count II, the plaintiffs claimed that
Eckell, Sparks was liable for $340,270, together with interest and
costs for attorney’s fees incurred by the Glovers in contesting
decedent’s will. The trial court dismissed this claim, with
prejudice, finding that the Glovers lacked standing to assert the
claim. The court additionally found that the claim could not be
asserted separately but rather was a component of the damages
resulting from the malpractice, if any, committed by Eckell, Sparks
in preparing the will. (Damages resulting in the malpractice, if
any, committed by Eckell, Sparks in preparing decedent’s will
11 Decedent’s estate agrees that attorney’s fees of
$247,500 paid to Eckell, Sparks that the Orphans’ Court ordered
be returned to the estate are not deductible as administrative
expenses under sec. 2053(a)(2).
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011