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

contractplaintiffdefendantattorneyappealtrialprobatetrustwill
contractplaintiffdefendantattorneytrustwill

Related Cases

Auric v. Continental Cas. Co., 111 Wis.2d 507, 331 N.W.2d 325
View Case »
Ogle v. Fuiten, 102 Ill.2d 356, 466 N.E.2d 224, 80 Ill.Dec. 772
View Case »
Rudnick v. Rudnick, 179 Cal.App.4th 1328, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 493, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 14,434, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,944
View Case »
Dilks v. Carson, 197 Okla. 128, 168 P.2d 1020, 1946 OK 108
View Case »
Shriners Hospitals for Crippled Children v. Gardiner, 152 Ariz. 527, 733 P.2d 1110
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Stowe v. Smith, 184 Conn. 194, 441 A.2d 81

Facts

The plaintiff's mother instructed the defendant attorney to draft a will that would create a trust for the plaintiff, with specific provisions regarding the distribution of the trust assets. The attorney assured the mother that he had prepared the will according to her instructions, but after her death, it was discovered that the will did not conform to her wishes. The plaintiff, believing the attorney's mistake invalidated the will, appealed its probate but ultimately settled for a reduced share of the estate. The trial court initially struck the original complaint for lack of a direct obligation to the plaintiff, prompting the filing of a substituted complaint.

The original complaint made the following allegations. The plaintiff's mother instructed the defendant, an attorney at law, to prepare a will which would provide that one-half of her estate be held in trust for the plaintiff; that when the plaintiff attained the age of fifty the assets of the trust would be distributed to him; but that upon the plaintiff's death prior to attaining the age of fifty, the assets of the trust would be distributed to the plaintiff's issue.

Issue

Did the substituted complaint set forth a valid cause of action for the plaintiff as a third party beneficiary of the contract between the attorney and the testatrix?

Did the substituted complaint set forth a valid cause of action for the plaintiff as a third party beneficiary of the contract between the attorney and the testatrix?

Rule

A third party seeking to enforce a contract must allege and prove that the contracting parties intended for the promisor to assume a direct obligation to the third party.

We have stated that a third party seeking to enforce a contract must allege and prove that the contracting parties intended that the promisor should assume a direct obligation to the third party.

Analysis

The court analyzed the allegations in the substituted complaint, which claimed that the attorney intended to assume a direct obligation to the intended beneficiaries by agreeing to prepare the will according to the testatrix's instructions. The court noted that the benefit the plaintiff would have received under a properly drafted will was closely connected to the attorney's promise to the testatrix, thus allowing the plaintiff to enforce the contract despite the attorney's performance not being rendered directly to him.

The present complaint, however, alleges that the defendant assumed a relationship not only with the testatrix but also with the intended beneficiaries. If the defendant thwarted the wishes of the testatrix, an intended beneficiary would also suffer an injury in that after the death of the testatrix the failure of her testamentary scheme would deprive the beneficiary of an intended bequest.

Conclusion

The court found error in the trial court's judgment, set it aside, and remanded the case for further proceedings, affirming that the substituted complaint stated a valid cause of action.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the law.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed because the Supreme Court determined that the substituted complaint adequately stated a cause of action as a third party beneficiary.

The court concluded that the beneficiary could enforce the contract due to the attorney's obligation to prepare the will according to the testatrix's instructions.

You must be