Opinion
10-P-842
09-14-2011
PETER WINCHESTER & another v. WILLIAM WILLOCK.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
1. In the litigation before the court below, William Willock, the administrator and defendant, conceded that a $10,000 overpayment had been made to his wife and that each of the heirs should have received $120,000. He was adjudged guilty of contempt for failing to timely remedy the discrepancy in distributions. The judge determined further that there was no agreement between the heirs and the administrator for a $17,000 flat fee. Upon this finding, the burden then fell on the administrator to prove the reasonableness of his fees. See, e.g., Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Natl. Bank v. Burns, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 251, 255-256 (1981) ('Once payment has been made, the fiduciary administering the estate must justify the basis for the disbursement, especially in circumstances like the present where there have been allegations of impropriety on his part. For without that, the soundness of his judgment cannot be determined'). Further, the burden was on the administrator to demonstrate that his services were beneficial to the estate. See Brackett v. Fuller, 279 Mass. 62, 71-72 (1932), and cases cited.
Accordingly, the matter must be remanded for findings as to the reasonableness of the administrator's fees. See, e.g., McMahon v. Krapf, 323 Mass. 118, 124 (1948) ('Beneficiaries of a trust are entitled to the protection of the courts where . . . the exercise of judgment by a fiduciary is clearly inconsistent with a due appreciation of his responsibilities as a fiduciary'). An evidentiary hearing may be held at the discretion of the judge.
2. The plaintiff-appellants also argue that the interest calculations made by the judge were incorrect with respect to $10,000 out of the $120,000 that each of the heirs received under the judge's ruling, because one of the heirs, Donna Willock, had initially erroneously been given an additional $10,000. The judge, however, awarded interest on this $10,000 (along with the rest of the two $120,000 sums due to the appellants) for the entire relevant time period. Put another way, the judge required Ms. Willock or her husband, the administrator, to return not only the $10,000, but interest reflecting the time value of that money. We thus see no error in the judge's calculations.
Conclusion. The June 4, 2004, amended judgment on the complaint for contempt and the order denying the motion for reconsideration thereof are affirmed. The judgment on the amended first account is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum and order.
So ordered.
By the Court (Cypher, Grainger & Rubin, JJ.),