HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-13 F.AFILESVClientsV15121 SchraderA15121.I.answer.wpd
Ivo V. Otto, III, Esquire
Attorney LD. No. 27763
Katie J. Maxwell, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 206018
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
IN RE: JOAN SCHRADER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
an Incapacitated Person : CUMBERLAND COLJNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
: N0. 2013-168
ANSWER TO PETITIONER FREDERICK A. SCHRADER'S PETITION
FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
AND NOW, comes the Respondent, Joan Schrader, by and through her attorneys,Martson
Law Offices,and in support of her Answer to Frederick A. Schrader's Petition for Attorney Fees and
Costs, answers as follows:
l. Respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny tl�e�averments of
c'� �;:.; �-"�" ;,.�
Paragraph 1. � n __ �� �::y
G7 _ � +�`
2. Admitted. �� . `" -
�.� r-,.�
3. Admitted. � � � `-�
�� �.
,,_ - .,. r, .
_,. -v� .. ,
4. Admitted. � � _ -_. �
..� �..�
5. Admitted. ° _ '
' 3
s �..,...\ .. �
6. Denied. Undersigned counsel is without specific inforrriation to adrn�t or deny the
averments of Paragraph 6; however, to the extent that an answer is required, it is believed that
counsel for Petitioner did make inquiries into Respondent's need for a guardian and prepared to
present a case on behalf of his client, Frederick A. Schrader, for the appointment of a guardian for
Respondent.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted.
11. Exhibit "C" and Attorney French's affidavit are documents which speak for
themselves to which no response is required.
12. Section 5536 of the Probate,Estate,and Fiduciary Code is a document which speaks
for itself to which no response is required.
13. Admitted in part and denied in part. The averments of Paragraph 13 are admitted to
the extent that the cases cited by the Petitioner do, in fact, state what Petitioner purports them to
state. Additionally, orphan's courts have ordered the payment of a Petitioner's attorney's fees in
connection with the appointment of a guardian of an incapacitated person. However,it is denied that
courts order the outright payment of a Petitioner's attorney's fees without regard to the total amount
of the fees, the quality of the work performed, and the results obtained by the attorney seeking the
fees. In re LaRocca's Trust Estate, 246 A.2d 337, 339 (Pa. 1968).
14. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
15. Denied as stated. The Court in LaRocca held that fees may be awarded under the
factors listed by the Petitioner, but does not indicate that they should or must be awarded.
16. Denied as stated. By way of further response, Petitioner was only instrumental in
causing the appointment of a limited guardian for Respondent to the extent that he was the party
responsible for initiating the action. In all other regards, Respondent cooperated with Petitioner's
request and in fact, agreed to the appointment of a limited guardian. Petitioner's initial intent was
to have a plenary guardian appointed for Respondent, a route which was abandoned after
Respondent's cooperation.
17. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
18. Denied as stated. It is undersigned counsel's position that the total amount of fees
requested by Petitioner's counsel is unreasonable due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of
those fees were accrued in anticipation of contentious litigation. Despite the fact that Petitioner's
counsel was prepared for a dispute, none ever occurred, and the parties were able to amicably and
quickly resolve the case with the appointment of a limited guardian.
The list of factors outlined in LaRocca to determine the reasonableness of fees also includes
" whether the fund involved was `created' by the attorney". LaRocca at 339. Here, Petitioner's
counsel did not create the fund for the benefit of the Respondent. Respondent was already in
possession of the money at issue,and the overall change in her ability to access and spend her money
by these proceedings was minimal. Respondent currently receives a monthly allowance of$4,000
all of which may be spent solely at her discretion. Additionally, all of Respondent's expenses are
paid separately by the limited guardian. Another factor listed in LaRoca is the "importance of the
litigation";it is undersigned counsel's opinion that there was relatively little import to this litigation
in light of the fact that Petitioner and his counsel consented to the appointment of a limited guardian,
and the issuance of substantial monthly allowance for the Respondent.
19. Denied, Petitioner's counsel's total requested fees of$58,416.31 are unreasonable
in light of the following facts:
a)the ultimate resolution of this case with respect to Respondent's guardianship was
achieved through the consent of the parties;
b) there were no court appearances; and
c) that there was no fund created by the attorney.
20. Admitted.
WHEREFORE,Respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Court to schedule a hearing
to determine the reasonableness of the fees incurred by Petitioner's counsel and the obligation of
Respondent to pay those fees.
Respectfully Submitted,
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
By:
Ivo V. Ott , Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 27763
Katie J. Maxwell, Esquire
Attorney LD. No. 206018
10 E. High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: �'I Zp �.3 Attorney for Respondent Joan Schrader
�
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,Mary M.Price,an authorized agent for Martson Law Offices,hereby certify that a copy of
the foregoing Answer was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle,PA,first
class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Thomas A. French, Esquire
RHOADS & SINON, LLP
One South Market Street
P.O. Box 1146
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Thomas P. Gacki, Esquire
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
213 Market Street, 8th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
By: �,�Z�
M. Price
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: $�/020/�