Get email alerts on the Procedural Issues Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears competing arguments on PR loans, oath technicalities and fee awards
Summary
Personal representative's counsel defended a court‑approved loan to the estate and said procedural objections (such as a separate oath when PR was later appointed for the entire estate) were waived; appellant argued fee awards and conduct warranted closer scrutiny and potential reversal.
John Bertard, counsel for the personal representative, told the panel the PR obtained court approval before borrowing to fund estate obligations and that selling assets would have costs comparable to borrowing; he said objections to the loan were untimely and unsupported.
Bertard also argued that some procedural claims raised by appellant (for example, whether the PR filed a separate oath for appointment over the entire estate) were not raised in the petition below and therefore were waived on appeal; he described those points as harmless and curable by the trial court if they had been presented earlier.
On the question of appellate attorney fees, Bertard sought affirmance and an award of appellate fees to the estate; appellant countered that her efforts challenged misconduct and that fee awards should not ignore the alleged harms. The panel pressed both sides on which legal standards apply to fee awards and when statutory precedent requires or permits fee shifting.
The panel took the matter under submission following argument.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
