WILSON v. BROWN Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>WILSON v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >WILSON</b><b<br /> > v.</b><b<br /> > BROWN</b><b ></b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/10/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b ><u>CERTIFIED<br /> FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*</u></b><b<br /> ></b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SECOND<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> THREE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>ESTATE OF DOROTHY MANUEL,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Deceased.<br /> <br/>___________________________________<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>TERRI WILSON,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Petitioner<br /> and Respondent,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>NANCY L. BROWN,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Contestant<br /> and Appellant;<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DAWN CLARK-JOHNSON et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Objectors<br /> and Appellants.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> B210701<br /> c/w B215380<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Los Angeles County<br /> <br/> Super.<br /> Ct. No. BP095813)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE <br /> FROM PART I….</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Attorney Clark-Johnson and Attorney<br /> Lewellyn each filed declarations in which they argued their allocation of the<br /> fees awarded should be zero. Both<br /> counsel argued that Brown's denials of the requests for admission, while they<br /> were counsel, were reasonable. In<br /> addition, Attorney Clark-Johnson again argued that costs of proof may not be<br /> awarded against counsel, and both argued<br /> that any award of costs of proof should be limited only to the actual costs of<br /> proof. In response, Wilson<br /> filed an opposition arguing that this hearing was not a motion for<br /> reconsideration of the earlier award of costs of proof. As to allocation, Wilson<br /> indicated that, between the time of Brown's response to the first set of<br /> requests for admission to the time Attorney Clark-Johnson substituted out of<br /> the matter, her fees incurred were $10,153.50, and the fees incurred from<br /> Attorney Lewellyn's substitution to the end of the matter were $42,626. <br /> <br/> After<br /> a hearing, the trial court issued the<br /> following ruling in a June 27, 2008 minute order: â€