{
  "id": 12169169,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ANGELIKA KATSOS, DECEASED",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re the Estate of Katsos",
  "decision_date": "1987-03-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 8620SC814",
  "first_page": "682",
  "last_page": "686",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 N.C. App. 682"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 22",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "25"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 535",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564666
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "537"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0535-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 S.E. 2d 345",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "348"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 N.C. App. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549372
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "327-28"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/47/0323-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 40",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "42"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 236",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560879
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "238"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0236-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 369,
    "char_count": 7280,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.9,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7517316646646195
    },
    "sha256": "467e727e27fdb5aa4a0a67bc67de7400db9ea50ad8240ecc88c314c939e84258",
    "simhash": "1:652fc93634b97546",
    "word_count": 1167
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:23.119892+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Phillips concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ANGELIKA KATSOS, DECEASED"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORR, Judge.\nKatsos asserts that no statutory authority exists under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 28A-15-12(c) for the assessment of attorney\u2019s fees. We do not agree.\nThe general rule in North Carolina is that, in the absence of statutory authority, a court may not allow attorney\u2019s fees as part of the costs recoverable by a successful party in a civil action. Hicks v. Albertson, 284 N.C. 236, 238, 200 S.E. 2d 40, 42 (1973).\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 28A-15-12(c) provides that \u201c[t]he party against whom the final judgment is rendered shall be adjudged to pay the costs of the proceedings hereunder.\u201d\nTim Katsos is the \u201cparty against whom final judgment has been rendered.\u201d The \u201ccosts of the proceedings\u201d include the necessary legal services provided by the co-administrators. These services involved the preparation of numerous motions and required the co-administrators to attend a series of hearings and appeals. These services were all necessary in order to compel Katsos to account for certain property of his mother\u2019s estate. The co-administrators would have incurred none of these costs had Katsos provided an accounting as initially ordered. The administrators incurred these legal costs in their efforts to protect the estate, and therefore such costs should be recoverable.\nKatsos further contends that if attorney\u2019s fees were recoverable, the amount awarded is not supported by competent evidence and therefore should be set aside. We disagree.\nAn award of attorney\u2019s fees cannot be upheld in the absence of findings by the court upon which a determination of the reasonableness of the fees can be based, such as the nature and scope of the legal services rendered and the skill and time required. Brown v. Brown, 47 N.C. App. 323, 327-28, 267 S.E. 2d 345, 348 (1980). The co-administrators provided the clerk with sufficient information upon which she could make a reasonable award. In their \u201cPetition for Counsel Fees,\u201d the co-administrators stated that they had represented the estate not only as co-administrators, but also as attorneys and had rendered services beyond that ordinarily required by co-administrators. The petition included an extensive list of the legal services performed which were beyond the ordinary duties of co-administrators. The list included the date each service was provided, as well as what that service entailed. The following is an excerpt from that list:\nAugust 14, 1980\u2014No compliance [by Katsos], motion filed to show cause and appoint person to act in Tim Katsos\u2019 behalf.\nAugust 29, 1980 \u2014Hearing held on motions, Katsos and counsel appeared to contest.\nThe petition adequately explains the nature and scope of the legal services provided by the co-administrators and is competent evidence on which to base an award.\nKatsos asserts that the trial court improperly awarded attorney\u2019s fees as a sanction for contempt. This argument has no merit.\nAttorney\u2019s fees were never awarded as a sanction for contempt as Katsos suggests. Katsos was found in contempt for the nonpayment of the $34,150.00. The clerk ordered him to pay $5,000.00 in costs, including attorney\u2019s fees. This award of attorney\u2019s fees, however, was entered as a result of the co-administrators\u2019 petition, not as a sanction for contempt.\nKatsos\u2019 contention that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him equitable relief from the award of attorney\u2019s fees is also without merit.\nThe denial of defendant\u2019s motion was a proper exercise of the trial judge\u2019s discretion. A discretionary order of the trial court is conclusive on appeal in the absence of abuse or arbitrariness. Highway Commission v. Hemphill, 269 N.C. 535, 537, 153 S.E. 2d 22, 25 (1967). No abuse of discretion has been shown.\nFinally, Katsos argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him a stay of execution and in requiring him to pay the $5,000.00 immediately. This too was a matter for the trial court\u2019s discretion. As no abuse has been shown, we find that the trial court properly exercised its discretionary power.\nThe award of attorney\u2019s fees was proper and the amount awarded was supported by competent evidence. Therefore, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Arnold and Phillips concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ORR, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Max D. Ballinger, attorney for respondent appellant.",
      "Brown, Fox & Deaver, by Bobby G. Deaver and Hoyle & Hoyle, by Kenneth R. Hoyle, attorneys and co-administrators for petitioner appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ANGELIKA KATSOS, DECEASED\nNo. 8620SC814\n(Filed 17 March 1987)\nExecutors and Administrators \u00a7 37 \u2014 refusal of deceased\u2019s son to account for assets \u2014 attorney\u2019s fees \u2014right of administrators to recover from deceased\u2019s son\nThe co-administrators of deceased\u2019s estate could properly recover attorney\u2019s fees from deceased\u2019s son where the co-administrators prepared numerous motions and attended a series of hearings and appeals in order to compel deceased\u2019s son to account for certain property of his mother\u2019s estate; the co-administrators would have incurred none of these costs had the son provided an accounting as initially ordered; and the administrators incurred these legal costs in their efforts to protect the estate. Furthermore, the amount awarded was supported by competent evidence where the administrators provided the clerk with an extensive list of legal services performed which were beyond the ordinary duties of co-administrators, and the list included the date each service was provided as well as what that service entailed. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 28A-15-12(c).\nAppeal by respondent from Cornelius, Judge. Order entered 2 June 1986 in Superior Court, MOORE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 January 1987.\nOn 3 May 1979, the co-administrators of the Estate of Ange-lika Katsos filed a petition for discovery of assets. The petition requested that Tim Katsos, the son of the decedent, appear before the Clerk of Superior Court to answer questions concerning the possession of assets from his mother\u2019s estate. The order from this petition required Tim Katsos either to account for the assets or to deliver $34,150.00 to the co-administrators within thirty days. If he failed to do so, he would be subject to contempt. Tim Katsos appealed the order to the superior court, which dismissed the appeal. The court found him guilty of civil contempt for failure to comply with the order and remanded the case to the clerk. On remand, the clerk again ordered him to pay the $34,150.00.\nAs of 30 September 1983, Katsos had still not paid the $34,150.00. On that date, the co-administrators moved for a hearing to enact the previous orders of the court and to determine the costs, including attorney\u2019s fees, to be assessed against Tim Kat-sos. The co-administrators prepared a \u201cPetition for Counsel Fees\u201d to recover the costs of the proceeding as provided in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 28A-15-12(c). The petition enumerated the necessary legal services they had rendered on behalf of the estate.\nOn 18 November 1983, the clerk ordered Katsos jailed until he paid the $34,150.00 as previously ordered. The clerk further ordered that he pay $5,000.00 in costs which included attorney\u2019s fees. Katsos appealed to the superior court and moved to deny the petition for attorney\u2019s fees. The superior court affirmed the clerk\u2019s order and ordered Katsos jailed unless he paid the $5,000.00 immediately. From that order, Katsos appealed.\nMax D. Ballinger, attorney for respondent appellant.\nBrown, Fox & Deaver, by Bobby G. Deaver and Hoyle & Hoyle, by Kenneth R. Hoyle, attorneys and co-administrators for petitioner appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0682-01",
  "first_page_order": 710,
  "last_page_order": 714
}
