In re: Seamon
Date Filed2023-12-19
Docket23-497
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Syllabus
attorney's fees, estate proceeding, conflict of interest, clerk of court, necessary charges, prenuptial agreement, personal representative
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA23-497
Filed 19 December 2023
Davie County, No. 15 E 338
IN THE MATTER OF:
Estate of RICKY W. SEAMON, Deceased.
Appeal by Petitioner from order entered 19 April 2022 by Judge Susan E. Bray
in Davie County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 November 2023.
James A. Davis, Pro se, Petitioner-Appellant.
Robinson & Lawing, LLP, by Christopher M. Watford, for Respondent-Appellee.
COLLINS, Judge.
Petitioner, James Davis, appeals from the superior courtâs order affirming a
prior order entered by the clerk of court that denied his petition for attorneyâs fees in
the underlying estate proceeding. Petitioner argues that the clerkâs finding that
Petitioner ârendered legal services to Cynthia Cuthrell in her capacity as
Administrator of the Estate of Ricky Seamonâ was sufficient by itself to justify an
award of attorneyâs fees to be paid by the estate. We disagree, and we affirm the
superior courtâs order.
I. Background
Prior to their marriage, Ricky Seamon (âDecedentâ) and Tatyana Seamon
(âSeamonâ) entered into a prenuptial agreement in April 2001 that barred Seamon
IN RE: SEAMON
Opinion of the Court
from receiving any portion of Decedentâs estate and from serving as personal
representative of Decedentâs estate. Seamon contacted Petitioner on 4 August 2015,
expressing concern that when Decedent died, âshe would get nothing as stipulated in
the [prenuptial agreement] and she would be homeless.â Petitioner emailed Seamon
on 6 August 2015 and âreassure[d] [her] that he will be able to assist her in the
matter[.]â
Decedent died intestate on 9 August 2015. Seamon emailed Petitioner on 10
August 2015 and asked him âto assist her in taking care ofâ Decedentâs estate and
informed him that Decedentâs attorneys âwill be against her defending [Decedentâs]
prenuptial aggreement (sic).â
Cynthia Cuthrell, Decedentâs cousin, contacted Petitioner on or about 30
August 2015 to inquire about Petitioner representing her in her role as Administrator
of Decedentâs estate. Petitioner assisted Cuthrell in applying for letters of
administration, and letters of administration were issued by the Clerk of Superior
Court of Davie County (âClerkâ) on 6 November 2015.
Despite the prenuptial agreement barring Seamon from receiving any portion
of Decedentâs estate, Petitioner filed an application for a yearâs allowance on behalf
of Seamon on 27 April 2016. The Clerk contacted Petitioner shortly thereafter and
âmade him aware that [she] would not sign the years allowance for Tatyana Seamon
due to the language in the prenuptial agreement[.]â
Several weeks later, Petitioner told Seamon that he could no longer represent
-2-
IN RE: SEAMON
Opinion of the Court
her due to a conflict of interest. On 3 June 2016, an attorney hired by Seamon sent
Petitioner a letter stating that he believed it was a conflict of interest for Petitioner
to continue representing Cuthrell in her capacity as Administrator of Decedentâs
estate and requesting that Petitioner withdraw as Cuthrellâs counsel. Petitioner filed
a motion to withdraw on 5 July 2016, and the Clerk allowed the motion by written
order entered 22 July 2016.
Decedentâs intestate heirs filed a motion for revocation of the letters of
administration issued to Cuthrell, alleging that â[t]he estate involves special
proceeding[s] and the potential for an attack by a surviving spouse who is
disinherited due to a pre-nuptialâ and that â[t]his litigation will provide potential
conflicts with the existing administrator and be complex.â The Clerk entered an order
on 30 August 2016 removing Cuthrell as Administrator and appointing Bryan
Thompson as Public Administrator of Decedentâs estate.
More than three years later, on 20 December 2019, Petitioner filed a petition
for payment of attorneyâs fees in the estate proceeding, alleging that he âassisted the
Administrator in the administration of the Estate of [Decedent] and has performed
valuable legal servicesâ totaling $14,793.64, and that his fees are âfair and reasonable
in every respect and should be paid from the funds on hand in the Estate.â
After a hearing on 15 November 2021, the Clerk entered an order on 3 January
2022 denying Petitionerâs petition for attorneyâs fees. Petitioner appealed to the
superior court. After a hearing, the superior court entered an order on 19 April 2022
-3-
IN RE: SEAMON
Opinion of the Court
affirming the Clerkâs order.1 Petitioner appealed to this Court.
II. Discussion
Petitioner argues that the superior court erred by affirming the Clerkâs order
denying his petition for attorneyâs fees.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-301.3governs âmatters arising in the administration of trusts and of estates of decedents[.]âN.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-301.3
(a) (2021). âIn matters covered by this section, the clerk shall determine all issues of fact and law . . . [and] shall enter an order or judgment, as appropriate, containing findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the order or judgment.âId.
§ 1-301.3(b). A party
aggrieved by the clerkâs order or judgment may appeal to the superior court. Id.
§ 1-301.3(c).
On appeal, the superior court âshall review the order or judgment of the clerk
for the purpose of determining only the following:â
(1) Whether the findings of fact are supported by the
evidence.
(2) Whether the conclusions of law are supported by
the findings of facts.
(3) Whether the order or judgment is consistent
with the conclusions of law and applicable law.
Id. § 1-301.3(d). To determine whether the findings of fact are supported by the
evidence, the superior court reviews the whole record. In re Estate of Pate, 119 N.C.
1 Both the Clerkâs order and the superior courtâs order incorrectly indicate that the petition
for attorneyâs fees was filed on 20 December 2018 instead of 20 December 2019.
-4-
IN RE: SEAMON
Opinion of the Court
App. 400, 402-03, 459 S.E.2d 1, 2(1995). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. In re Estate of Mullins,182 N.C. App. 667, 671
,643 S.E.2d 599, 602
(2007). âThe standard of review in this Court is the same as that in the [s]uperior [c]ourt.â In re Estate of Monk,146 N.C. App. 695, 697
,554 S.E.2d 370, 371
(2001) (citation omitted).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-13-3(a)(19) authorizes a personal representative to
âemploy persons, including attorneys, . . . to advise or assist the personal
representative in the performance of the personal representativeâs administrative
duties.â N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-13-3(a)(19) (2021). No direct statutory provision
governs the payment of attorneyâs fees from an estate to an attorney representing the
personal representative of the estate; the personal representative is generally
personally liable for such fees. See Kelly v. Odum, 139 N.C. 278, 282,51 S.E. 953, 954
(1905) (âAn executor is always personally liable to his counsel for his fee or
compensation; but it is in no sense a debt of the estate. He is liable in such case in
his individual, and not in his official, capacity.â). However, under N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 28A-23-3(d)(1), the clerk of court possesses the authority to allow âreasonable sums
for necessary charges and disbursements incurred in the management of the estate.â
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-23-3(d)(1) (2021).
âThe Supreme Court has expressly recognized that attorneysâ fees incurred in
the administration of an estate fall within this statutory provision.â In re Taylor, 242
N.C. App. 30, 40,774 S.E.2d 863, 870
(2015) (citing Phillips v. Phillips,296 N.C. 590, 602
,252 S.E.2d 761, 769
(1979)). Nonetheless, the clerk may deny the payment of
-5-
IN RE: SEAMON
Opinion of the Court
attorneyâs fees from an estate to an attorney representing the personal representative
of an estate where the attorney improperly aligns the personal representativeâs
interests with those of a competing claimant. See McMichael v. Proctor, 243 N.C. 479,
485,91 S.E.2d 231, 235-36
(1956).
Here, the Clerk made the following relevant findings of fact:
5. James A. Davis (Attorney Davis) is an attorney licensed
to practice law in the State of North Carolina [and]
rendered legal services to Cynthia Cuthrell in her capacity
as Administrator of the Estate of Ricky Seamon and
rendered legal services to Tatyana Seamon.
6. Attorney Davis received contact from Tatyana Seamon
on August 4, 2015 at a time when the deceased had fallen
ill, and Tatyana Seamon was concerned that she would be
barred from receiving anything from her husbandâs estate
because of the terms of a prenuptial agreement executed
by the deceased and Tatyana in 2001.
7. Subsequent to this interaction, Tatyana Seamon,
contacted Attorney Davis on August 10, 2015 in which she
informed Attorney Davis that she wished to challenge the
validity of the prenuptial agreement.
8. Attorney Davis entered into a formal agreement for
representation with Tatyana Seamon [o]n August 11, 2015.
Later tha[t] same month, Tatyana Seamon sought out
Attorney Davis to ask how to address certain questions in
challenging the validity of the prenuptial agreement.
....
11. On April 27, 2016 Attorney Davis submitted an
âApplication and Assignment of Years Allowanceâ or a
Spouseâs Yearly Allowance (SYA) on behalf of Tatyana
Seamon.
....
19. The exact duration of Attorney Davisâ representation
of the Estate, as compared with his representation of
-6-
IN RE: SEAMON
Opinion of the Court
Tatyana Seamon, cannot be determined because of the
competing billing statements Attorney Davis submitted in
support of his petition for payment of attorney fees, one of
which recites a beginning date that actually precedes the
death of the decedent. The ending date on both billing
statements is a date after the Court granted Attorney
Davisâ motion to withdraw from representation.
....
21. The work of James A. Davis as counsel to Cynthia
Cuthrell improperly aligned the interest of the Estate with
competing claimants, namely Tatyana Seamon. Tatyana
Seamon filed a counterclaim to an action to resolve pending
estate issues on November 14, 2018 to set aside the
prenuptial agreement and the [c]ourt finds that Tatyana
Seamonâs intent was consistent with the fact that she
wished to set aside the prenuptial agreement, and thereby
become the sole beneficiary of the Estate, since her first
contact with Attorney Davis prior to Mr. Seamonâs death.
22. Attorney Davis maintained a right to proceed against
Cynthia Cuthrell for payment of said attorneyâs fees but
did not do so based on the evidence provided to the [c]ourt.
Cynthia Cuthrell instituted litigation against Attorney
Davis in file 18 CVS 628, Davie County Clerk of Superior
Court alleging malpractice by Attorney Davis, which
concluded by that Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice
dated July 13, 2021.
23. After a thorough and conscious consideration, this
[c]ourt finds that charges submitted by Attorney Davis and
supported by the two competing billing documents were not
necessary nor were they properly incurred in the
management of the Estate of Ricky Seamon, deceased, as
provided by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-23-3(d)(1).
Based on these findings of fact, the Clerk made the following relevant
-7-
IN RE: SEAMON
Opinion of the Court
conclusions of law:2
16. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §28A-13-3(a)(19) a
personal representative is authorized to employ persons,
including attorneys to advise or assist the personal
representative in the performance of his or her
administrative duties. If a personal representative retains
an attorney to assist in the administration of the estate,
the personal representative is personally liable for the
associated attorneyâs fees. The fees are not a debt of the
estate, and the attorney does not become a creditor of the
estate. Kelly v. Odum, 139 N.C. 278,51 S.E. 953
(1905).
17. Unless otherwise ordered by this [c]ourt, attorney fees
are to be paid by the personal representative of the Estate.
....
20. The [c]ourt should deny a request to recover fees from
an Estate to an attorney who improperly aligns the interest
of the personal representative with that of a competing
claimant. McMichael v. Proctor, 243 N.C. 479,91 S.E.2d 231
(1956).
....
2. There is no direct statutory provision governing the
payment of attorney fees for an attorney representing a
personal representative hired by the personal
representative in the administration of an estate, but the
Clerk is authorized, in its discretion, to allow such fees as
a ânecessaryâ charge incurred in the management of the
estate pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A 23-3(d)(1).
3. The fees requested by the Petitioner are not necessary
nor proper charges incurred in management of the Estate
of Ricky Seamon, deceased, as provided by N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 28A 23-3(d)(1). Furthermore, the nature of the
representation was an improper alignment of the interest
2 Findings of fact 16, 17, and 20 are not findings but are instead conclusions of law, and we
therefore review them de novo. See Norwood v. Village of Sugar Mountain, 193 N.C. App. 293, 298,667 S.E.2d 524, 528
(2008) (âFindings of fact which are essentially conclusions of law will be treated
as such on appeal.â (quotation marks, brackets, ellipses, and citations omitted)).
-8-
IN RE: SEAMON
Opinion of the Court
of the personal representative with a potential claimant,
thus any attorneyâs fees incurred by Attorney Davis should
not be paid from the Estate of Ricky W. Seamon.
The Clerk thus denied Petitionerâs petition for attorneyâs fees.
Petitioner does not argue that the findings of fact are not supported by the
evidence, and they are thus binding on appeal. See In re Estate of Harper, 269 N.C.
App. 213, 215,837 S.E.2d 602
, 604 (2020). Petitionerâs sole argument on appeal is
that the portion of finding of fact 5 which states that Petitioner ârendered legal
services to Cynthia Cuthrell in her capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Ricky
Seamonâ âis sufficient by itself to justify an award of attorney fees and reimbursed
expenses to Petitioner[.]â We disagree.
Petitionerâs argument ignores well-settled law that an attorney who
improperly aligns the interests of the personal representative of the estate with those
of a competing claimant is not entitled to attorneyâs fees paid from the estate. See
McMichael, 243 N.C. at 485,91 S.E.2d at 235-36
(holding that a personal
representative was not entitled to attorneyâs fees from the estate for âassert[ing] the
widowâs defense to the affirmative allegations made by the heirs as the basis of their
claim that the widow had forfeited her right of dowerâ).
The Clerk found Petitioner rendered legal services to both Cuthrell, in her
capacity as Administrator, and to Seamon, often contemporaneously. Petitioner
knew of the prenuptial agreement barring Seamon from receiving any portion of
Decedentâs estate and Seamonâs desire to invalidate the agreement and become the
-9-
IN RE: SEAMON
Opinion of the Court
sole beneficiary of the estate. Despite his awareness of the prenuptial agreement,
Petitioner filed an application for a yearâs allowance on behalf of Seamon, during
which time he also represented Cuthrell as Administrator of Decedentâs estate.
While a clerk possesses the authority to allow âreasonable sums for necessary
charges and disbursements incurred in the management of the estate[,]â N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 28A-23-3(d)(1), the services Petitioner rendered to Cuthrell were not
ânecessary chargesâ incurred in the management of the estate because Petitioner
labored under a conflict of interest that improperly aligned Cuthrellâs interests as
Administrator of Decedentâs estate with those of Seamon as a competing claimant.
McMichael, 243 N.C. at 485,91 S.E.2d at 235-36
.
The findings of fact support the Clerkâs conclusions of law that â[t]he fees
requested by the Petitioner are not necessary nor proper charges incurred in
management of the Estate of Ricky Seamon, deceased, as provided by N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 28A 23-3(d)(1)â in that âthe nature of the representation was an improper alignment
of the interest of the personal representative with a potential claimant, thus any
attorneyâs fees incurred by Attorney Davis should not be paid from the Estate of Ricky
W. Seamon.â
Accordingly, the superior court did not err by affirming the Clerkâs order
denying Petitionerâs petition for attorneyâs fees.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior courtâs order.
- 10 -
IN RE: SEAMON
Opinion of the Court
AFFIRMED.
Judges TYSON and MURPHY concur.
- 11 -