Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionattorneymotionwillrespondent

jurisdictionattorneywillrespondent

Related Cases

In re Krakauer’s Estate, nan

Facts

The executors of the will of the decedent filed a petition and notice of motion to substitute new attorneys for the respondents, who asserted a lien on the estate papers for their legal services. The will had been proved, and there were no specified papers that had reached the respondents as part of that proceeding. Additionally, a proceeding to assess the transfer tax had concluded, and it was not claimed that the papers were delivered to the respondents solely for that purpose.

The respondents assert a lien on the papers for their services. No proceeding is pending in this court. The will of the decedent has been proved and no papers are specified as having reached the hands of the respondents as incident to that proceeding. A proceeding to assess the transfer tax has been concluded and it is not charged that the papers in question were delivered to the respondents solely for the purposes of that proceeding.

Issue

Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the executors in substituting attorneys and directing the delivery of estate papers.

Rule

A surrogate has no general control over attorneys and cannot direct or protect them except incidentally in making orders pertinent to a proceeding pending before him.

Analysis

The court determined that there was no proceeding pending in which a substitution of attorneys could be ordered. It emphasized that an order substituting one attorney for another is merely an incident in the progress of a cause, and without a pending cause, the court could not make such an order.

Upon these facts this court is entirely without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. A surrogate has no general control over attorneys and cannot either direct or protect them, except incidentally in making orders pertinent to a proceeding pending before him.

Conclusion

The court denied the application, stating that it was entirely without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

Application denied.

Who won?

The respondents prevailed in the case because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the executors' request.

The court is entirely without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Auric v. Continental Cas. Co., 111 Wis.2d 507, 331 N.W.2d 325

Matter of Piel, nan

Gerking v. Wolff, 293 Or. 146, 651 P.2d 143 (Table)

In re Estate of Byrne, Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2014 WL 1233708

In re Cobb’s Will, 271 N.C. 307, 156 S.E.2d 285