How Connecticut fiduciary compensation actually works
Connecticut is genuinely unusual: no statute sets any percentage or fee schedule. Everything runs through a century-old case and a court rule requiring detailed justification.
1. No statute — a 1923 case still controls
Hayward v. Plant, 98 Conn. 374 (1923): the landmark Connecticut Supreme Court case on fiduciary compensation, still cited by probate and superior court judges "in just about every decision on fees." Connecticut has had no statutory fee schedule for over a century — this single case, and the court rules built around it, do all the work.
2. A 9-point task statement, required by court rule
Probate Court Rules of Procedure, Rule 39.2: when a fiduciary submits an invoice, it should address nine points: (1) size of the estate; (2) responsibilities involved; (3) character of the work required; (4) special problems and difficulties met; (5) results achieved; (6) knowledge, skill, and judgment required; (7) manner and promptness of the work; (8) time required; and (9) other relevant and material circumstances. A bare statement of hours alone, without the other eight factors, generally isn't enough to get an invoice approved.
3. An informal yardstick, not a rule
Common probate court practice (not law): many judges informally use combined fiduciary, attorney, and accountant fees totaling under roughly 5% of the gross taxable estate as a rough sign the request will be approved without much scrutiny. Above that threshold, judges typically want the 9-point task statement to clearly justify the amount. Some sources describe judges individually applying stricter informal thresholds (around 3-4% for the fiduciary's own fee alone) — none of this is binding law, just widely observed practice.
4. A real, documented case
Estate of Macgonical: Judge F. Paul Kurmay (then also Connecticut's Probate Court Administrator) applied the Hayward standard and allowed two individual executors a combined $125,000 — 3.9063% of the $3,200,000 estate — plus a separate $60,000 in attorney fees. A real, citable example of the Hayward/Rule 39.2 framework applied to an actual estate.
5. What hourly rates actually look like
Courts have approved rates as low as $25/hour for a modest, successfully managed estate, and as high as $150/hour for lay executors on an estate over $2 million, when all nine Rule 39.2 factors were clearly documented.
| Component | Connecticut figure |
|---|---|
| Statutory formula | None — case law and court rule only |
| Controlling case | Hayward v. Plant (1923) |
| Task statement requirement | 9 factors, Rule 39.2 |
| Informal combined-fee yardstick | ~5% of gross taxable estate |