Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneysummary judgmentmalpracticedivorcelegal malpractice
attorneystatutesummary judgmentmalpracticedivorcelegal malpracticethird-party beneficiary

Related Cases

Teichner by Teichner v. W & J Holsteins, Inc., 64 N.Y.2d 977, 478 N.E.2d 177, 489 N.Y.S.2d 36
View Case »
Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners Re N.R.S., 403 So.2d 1315, 21 A.L.R.4th 1103
View Case »
Lewis v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2015 WL 9460124, 2015 A.D. Cases 423,678
View Case »
United States v. Yielding, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2009 WL 10678588
View Case »
Blum v. Blum, 59 Md.App. 584, 477 A.2d 289
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Estate of Drwenski, 83 P.3d 457, 2004 WY 5

Facts

Vernon Drwenski died before his divorce from Trudy Drwenski was finalized, resulting in Trudy inheriting a portion of his estate that would have gone to his daughter, Erin Connely, had the divorce been completed. Drwenski had hired attorney Scott McColloch to handle the divorce but failed to finalize it before his death. Connely alleged that McColloch breached his duty to her and the estate by not completing the divorce process in a timely manner.

Vernon Drwenski died before his divorce from Trudy Drwenski was finalized, resulting in Trudy inheriting a portion of his estate that would have gone to his daughter, Erin Connely, had the divorce been completed. Drwenski had hired attorney Scott McColloch to handle the divorce but failed to finalize it before his death. Connely alleged that McColloch breached his duty to her and the estate by not completing the divorce process in a timely manner.

Issue

Did Vernon Drwenski intend to benefit his daughter, Erin Connely, when he retained attorney Scott McColloch for his divorce, and did Connely have a legal claim for malpractice against McColloch?

1. Were there adequate facts in the record below to show that Connely individually, as a third-party beneficiary of her father, had a legal right to [make a] claim against Attorneys for legal malpractice occurring during the lifetime of her father? 2. Did Connely, as Personal Representative of the Estate, have a cause of action to pursue the attorney malpractice case under the Wyoming survival statute? 3. Should this matter be remanded in that the existence of a duty in a complex case such as this is a mixed issue of fact and law?

Rule

An attorney does not owe a duty to a nonclient unless the nonclient is an intended beneficiary of the attorney-client relationship.

An attorney does not owe a duty to a nonclient unless the nonclient is an intended beneficiary of the attorney-client relationship.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Drwenski intended to benefit Connely when he hired McColloch. It found no evidence that Drwenski's intention was to benefit Connely, as he did not finalize the divorce and had the opportunity to do so before his death. The court concluded that Connely was merely an incidental beneficiary and thus lacked standing to sue for legal malpractice.

The court analyzed whether Drwenski intended to benefit Connely when he hired McColloch. It found no evidence that Drwenski's intention was to benefit Connely, as he did not finalize the divorce and had the opportunity to do so before his death. The court concluded that Connely was merely an incidental beneficiary and thus lacked standing to sue for legal malpractice.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of McColloch, concluding that Connely had no cause of action for legal malpractice.

The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of McColloch, concluding that Connely had no cause of action for legal malpractice.

Who won?

Scott McColloch prevailed in the case because the court found that he owed no duty to Connely as she was not an intended beneficiary of the attorney-client relationship.

Scott McColloch prevailed in the case because the court found that he owed no duty to Connely as she was not an intended beneficiary of the attorney-client relationship.

You must be