- 28 -
tion in excess of that figure.” See Wolfe v. Turner, 299 A.2d
106, 109 (Md. 1973); Wright v. Nuttle, 298 A.2d 389, 391 (Md.
1973). Section 7-602(c), Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, does not
limit, as respondent appears to argue, the aggregate amount of
the commissions allowable to an estate’s personal representative
and the fees allowable to an estate’s attorney to the maximum
compensation allowable to such personal representative under Md.
Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, sec. 7-601(b).
Respondent determined to allow the estate a deduction under
section 2053 of $7,500 for attorney’s fees. Respondent does not
argue, and the record does not establish, that the aggregate
amount of the commissions allowable to the estate’s personal
representative under Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, sec. 7-601(b)
(i.e., $19,107) and the fees allowable to the estate’s attorney
under Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, sec. 7-602, which respondent
allowed the estate to deduct under section 2053 (i.e., $7,500),
is not “a fair and reasonable total charge for the cost of
administering the estate” of decedent under Md. Code Ann., Est.
& Trusts, sec. 7-602(c).25
25In respondent’s reply brief, respondent contends for the
first time that petitioner did not demonstrate “that the attor-
ney’s fees paid by the estate were for other than routine work of
the estate’s personal representative.” We reject respondent’s
contention. Respondent allowed the estate to deduct under sec.
2053 $7,500 of attorney’s fees. Implicit in respondent’s deter-
mination to allow such a deduction is respondent’s acknowledgment
that such attorney’s fees are allowable by both Maryland law and
(continued...)
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011