IN RE ESTATE OF RUTH H. DOYLE, DECEASED. JAMES S. DOYLE, APPELLANT,
v.
NCNB NATIONAL BANK, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RUTH H. DOYLE, DECEASED, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the probate judge did not err in ordering a further hearing on the personal representative's petition for compensation or in denying the appellant's attorney's fees at that time.
Appellant objected to the personal representative's petition for compensation. The probate judge ordered a further hearing after concluding the initia…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges an order entered on his objection to the petition for discharge and petition for review of compensation of personal representative, appellee.
Appellant raises only two issues in this appeal. He first argues that the probate judge below abused his discretion by ordering a further hearing on the personal representative’s petition for compensation. The order for an additional hearing followed the conclusion of the regularly noticed hearing in which the probate judge ruled that he would not approve the compensation based upon the evidence presented but would receive further evidence, if any, at a later hearing.
We find no error in the probate judge’s determination that he desired to receive further testimony. It is yet to be seen whether such a further hearing will result in further compensation for the personal representative and, if so, in what amount. Any party aggrieved by any further order of compensation may appeal both' the entitlement to such compensation and the amount awarded, if any.
Appellant also argues that it was error to deny him attorney’s fees in connection with his objection to the personal representative's fees. We find no error in the probate judge’s denial of those fees at this time. That issue may also be presented again on any further appeal.
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.