ESTATE OF ELLA COHEN DEC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of the Estate of ELLA COHEN,
Deceased.
HERTZBERG & NOVECK,
UNPUBLISHED
August 3, 1999
Appellant,
v
No. 206949
Oakland Probate Court
LC No. 95-243937 SE
MARTIN COHEN, RICHARD COHEN,
ADRIENNE WEIN, JACK WEIN, MARGO
STOLLMAN, SUZANNE STOLLMAN,
and LISA STOLLMAN SMOUHA,
Appellees.
Before: White, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Appellant Hertzberg & Noveck, legal counsel retained by co-personal representatives Martin
and Richard Cohen, appeals by of right from the probate court’s order allowing only $10,440.00 in
attorney fees, based upon 116 hours at $90.00 per hour, instead of $30,950.00, based upon 154.75
hours at $200.00 per hour, as requested by appellant. We affirm.
In general, the probate court has broad discretion in determining what constitutes reasonable
compensation for necessary legal services performed on behalf of a decedent’s estate. MCL 700.541;
MSA 27.5541; MCR 8.303; In re Kruger Estate, 176 Mich App 241, 251; 438 NW2d 898 (1989).
On appeal, appellant contends that the probate court abused its discretion by reducing the hours and
hourly rate claimed in appellant’s fee request without conducting an evidentiary hearing to consider the
factors listed in MRPC 1.5(a) and by interfering, without reason, with appellant’s private fee contract.
We disagree.
-1
The probate court held a hearing on appellant’s fee request on September 3, 1997, and the
parties had ample opportunity to present any testimony or other evidence at that time. Appellant never
offered to call any witnesses below and makes no actual offer of proof on appeal. Moreover, appellant
has failed to offer any argument specifically identifying how the arguments of the parties and remarks of
the probate court at the September 3, 1997 hearing might reflect inadequate consideration of the factors
listed in MRPC 1.5(a). The probate court was not obliged to defer to the terms of the private fee
agreement when determining the amount of reasonable compensation to be awarded under MCL
700.541; MSA 27.5541. See In re Condemnation of Private Property for Hwy Purposes, 209
Mich App 336, 342; 530 NW2d 183 (1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
