Surrogate’s Court Has Jurisdiction to Determine the Legal Fees Owed to Out-Of-State Counsel for Services to the Estate
In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Austin, the Second Department determined Surrogate’s Court erred when it held that Surrogate’s Court did not have jurisdiction to determine the legal fees due out-of-state counsel and Surrogate’s Court further erred when it ordered that the fees already paid to out-of-state counsel be returned. The out-of-state firm (Choate Hall) represented the executor who, at the time the firm was hired, lived in Massachusetts (where the firm is located). The opinion includes a detailed discussion of the jurisdiction of Surrogate’s Court, as well as the relevant statutory and case law (not summarized here):
…[W]e find that the Surrogate’s Court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to fix and determine the compensation owed to Choate Hall for services rendered to the estate. Further, the court should have made a determination as to the fair value of Choate Hall’s services, rather than direct that the entire fee be returned. Thereafter, the court should have directed only a refund of such fees paid to Choate Hall that it considered to have been paid in excess of what it determined to be the fair value of Choate Hall’s services to the estate pursuant to SCPA 2110. Matter of Askin, 2013 NY Slip Op 07963, 2nd Dept 11-27-13