PEOPLE v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY Part II 08:07:2006
PEOPLE v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Filed 8/2/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
C048336
(Super. Ct. No. CV022418)
Story Continue from Part I ……..
Certain state-law claims for damages brought by peanut farmers, alleging their crops were damaged by a pesticide marketed with a label stating its use was â€
Description
Where attorney for administrator of estate was to be paid under fee agreement for total number of hours based on hourly rates regardless of outcome, existence and value of assets in estate determined only whether fee award would be based on normal hourly rates or double those rates. Fee agreement was not enforceable as a contingency fee agreement within meaning of Probate Code Sec. 10811(c), which permits an attorney for administrator of estate to be paid for extraordinary services under a contingency fee agreement if trial court approves agreement after a noticed hearing. Alternatively, attorney was not entitled to fees according to plain terms of agreement where creditors had significant interest in knowing about attorney's compensation before negotiating with estate to reduce amount of their claims. But trial court failed to give creditors notice of hearing on petition to approve fee agreement. Fee award of $200,000, as opposed to $1.25 million award that was requested, was just and reasonable where estate's assets did not exceed $700,000, and estate still owed $1.7 million to creditors.
