Flint v. Davis

Thomas D. Horne, Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case came before the Court on the papers previously read, evidence, and arguments of counsel concerning the approval of certain expenditures in connection with the instant cause. The Court has previously addressed issues relating to the creation, interpretation, funding, and disposition of the corpus of the Flint Trust. Additionally, the Court has supervised the sale of the real estate that is the subject of these proceedings and has personally reviewed and commented upon the various contracts submitted with respect to the sale of the real estate.

It may be recalled that what is known as Trust B under the Flint Trust was, upon the death of Howard Flint, funded by the Trustees of the Flint Trust with percentage interests in the Flint Farm. Beneficiaries of the trust later challenged the funding of Trust B. As a result of that challenge, it was determined that the Trustees had erred and that Trust B had been underfunded and a constructive trust imposed. A later decree of this Court would correct the underfunding by a reallocation of parcels between Trust B and the Estate of Ida Flint.

A realtor was retained by the Trustees/Executors to market the farm. The realtor elected not to market the farm by parcel. Although sponsored by the Trustees and Executors, several offers were carefully review and rejected by the Court as inconsistent with the value established by the appraiser. Eventually a cash offer for the farm was found acceptable to the parties and approved by the Court. However, the allocation of the proceeds of sale between the beneficiaries of the Estate and of Trust B has been the subject of contention. Since the parcels were not sold as lots identified in the prior order of the Court, it became necessary to equitably apportion the proceeds from the sale of the entire farm and costs connected with these proceedings. Such apportionment was to be in a fashion that was both equitable and consistent with the intent of the settlors of the Flint Family Trust.

In a lengthy letter opinion and review with counsel and the parties, the Court expressed in detail its reasons for allocating the proceeds of sale between the estate and Trust B and the fashion in which such proceeds were to be divided. Central to a determination of a proper allocation of costs was the intent of the settlors and the amount recovered from the sale. A distribution of the proceeds was conducted under the supervision of the Court pursuant to the earlier decrees of the Court. The Court has previously determined the reasonableness of certain charges directly attributable to the instant litigation. These included an appraisal fee of $1,012.50; a fee of the General Receiver in the amount of $1336.86; Trustee's fees in the amount of $30,000.00; court reporter fee in the amount of $110.00; and a bequest to the Round Hill Baptist Church in the amount of $50,000.00.

The Court finds the following to be reasonable charges arising out of the instant litigation: fee of the executrix in the amount of $40,000.00 and attorney's fees and costs of Mr. Smith and Mr. Pugh in the amount of $165,375.61. The Court has carefully reviewed the billing documents in the case. They reflect professional services relating to not only the marketing of the property but the myriad of issues arising out of the construction and administration of the Trust. The volumes of paperwork that required review are contained in several large boxes.

Mr. Yates has filed a motion for the Court to reconsider its determination as to the allocation of costs and cancellation of the notes that are assets of the Estate. With respect to the determination of the proper allocation of costs, the Court has previously noted its reasons for allocating the proceeds of sale in the fashion outlined in this and the prior letter opinion. The motion to reconsider such allocation is denied except as to the notes payable by the trust to the estate. Nothing in the record of this case would suggest that the Court may cancel such notes within the context of these proceedings. This case involves a proper allocation of the proceeds of sale of the farm and not a cancellation of notes. Accordingly the motion of Mr. Yates will be granted in part and denied in part. Mr. Yates fees in connection with the instant litigation in the amount of $1,000.00 are deemed to be reasonable.

The fees of Ritzert in connection with the instant litigation the amount of $3,625.00 are found to be reasonable and should be charged to Trust B.

A Final Decree of Distribution of the proceeds from the sale of the property may be presented consistent with this opinion of the Court.

ENTERED this ___ day of June, 2001.

Thomas D. Horne, Chief Judge