Skip to main content

No Love for Contingency Contractor

In the combined cases of In Re Estate of Lujan and In Re Estate of Gulick (click on name to read opinion), the Court of Appeals upholds the trial court’s decision that a third-party contractor, Probate Asset Recovery LLC (“PAR”), is not entitled to a contingency fee for finding abandoned real properties (which have equity value) and for bringing that information to the attention of the Public Administrator. It’s a lengthy decision, and unpublished.

Essentially, PAR claims it is doing a public service by finding homes that need probate administration and notifying the PA before the property goes into foreclosure. PAR argues that a 1/3 contingency of the equity in such properties is fair compensation because their business model requires them to investigate many homes that turn out to be not worth pursuing for every home that they find which justifies opening an estate.  PAR says that if they can’t operate in this manner, they will go out of business and the solvent homes they now find will end up foreclosed, and Michigan families will lose out.

The COA counters that: Only lawyers are authorized to get paid contingency fees, and your business model isn’t our problem. Rather the trial court’s job is to look at what the reasonable value of your services were with respect to the property of this estate.  In these cases, the trial court determined that the reasonable value of your services was $45 per hour, and that decision is affirmed.

This Wayne County case comes in the context of significant bad publicity surrounding public administrators in the Metro Detroit area, and PAR’s role in particular. That context may have something – perhaps a lot – to do with the outcome and tone of this decision.  (To see one such report involving PAR and this issue, click here.)

For our purposes, the case would be helpful in situations in which a beneficiary is challenging the fees paid to a non-lawyer agent. In addition to affirming the rule that such arrangements need to be reasonable, this case provides support for the propositions that: (1) the trial court can directly reform contracts between the PR and the non-lawyer agent; and (2) in determining reasonableness of such arrangements, the trial court only concerns itself with the value provided to the estate and not the agent’s business model or public utility.