Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Richard McNEIL, deceased. James H. Cahill, Sr., nonparty-appellant; Mary McNeil, respondent.
In a proceeding to settle the final account of the administrator of the estate of Richard McNeil, James H. Cahill, Sr., the guardian ad litem of Raven Tiara McNeil, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate's Court, Kings County (Johnson, S.), dated November 19, 2008, as awarded him a fee in the sum of only $4,995 and, in effect, denied him an award of disbursements.
ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, to set forth the factors considered and the reasons for its determination with respect to the appellant's request for an award of a guardian ad litem's fee, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Surrogate's Court, Kings County, shall file its report with all convenient speed.
“A guardian ad litem is entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered in estate matters, as determined by the Surrogate ․ The value of those services is governed by the factors applicable to the determination of the value of legal services ․ The relevant factors are the nature and extent of the services, the actual time spent, the necessity therefore, the nature of the issues involved, the professional standing of counsel, and the results achieved” (Matter of Morris, 57 A.D.3d 674, 675 [868 N.Y.S.2d 766] [internal citations omitted] ).
Here, the Surrogate, in both the decision and the decree, failed to explain her reasoning for the guardian ad litem's fee award and made no reference to any of the above factors. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, for the purpose of setting forth the factors considered and the reasons for its award (see Matter of Audrey J.S., 34 A.D.3d 820, 821, 825 N.Y.S.2d 520; Matter of Martha O.J., 22 A.D.3d 756, 757, 804 N.Y.S.2d 387; Matter of Catherine K., 13 A.D.3d 534, 536, 787 N.Y.S.2d 78).
We decide no issues at this time.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 01, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)