- 43 -
the other heirs, who have never filed exceptions, to reap
the benefits of the efforts of * * * [the exceptant’s]
counsel without having to share in the expense of
producing those benefits. This would be a manifestly
unreasonable and inequitable result. * * *
In re Estate of Vaughn, supra at 1320; see also Commonwealth ex
rel. Hensel v. Order of Solon, 44 A. 327, 328 (Pa. 1899) (where the
attorney of one of several parties, all equally interested, secures
a fund which would otherwise have been misappropriated or lost, and
all share equally in the distribution, it is but equitable that all
should share in the expense which produced the fund, although but
one moved in the matter). “Under the circumstances * * * [the
beneficiary] must be allowed reasonable counsel fees out of the
estate funds.” In re Estate of Vaughn, supra at 1321.
We conclude that under Pennsylvania law, Mr. Glover would be
entitled to reasonable compensation for services he rendered for
the benefit of the estate. See, e.g., id. at 1320 (where the
executor, a beneficiary of the estate, expended extra effort in a
role separate and distinct from his role as executor, he was
entitled to fair and reasonable compensation for his additional
services). Paying a beneficiary, instead of a third party, for
services rendered is not unfair to the estate. Id.
“In Pennsylvania, the test for determining the appropriateness
of the fees charged for services rendered in the administration of
an estate has always been ‘reasonableness’.” Estate of Phillips,
616 A.2d 667, 668 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (citing In re Estate of
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011