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

attorneyappealtrialmalpracticetrustwill

attorneyappealtrialmalpracticewillappellant

Related Cases

Walker v. Lawson, 526 N.E.2d 968

Facts

Sybille Willard, the decedent, approached attorney John W. Lawson for legal advice regarding her estate after being diagnosed with cancer. She wanted to leave her entire estate to her two minor sons from her first marriage, omitting her second husband, Thomas Willard. Lawson drafted a will that established a trust for the sons, but after Sybille's death, Thomas elected to take against the will, leading to the malpractice claim by the beneficiaries.

Appellant is one of the decedent's two children who were beneficiaries under her will. The facts show that in the spring of 1980 Sybille Willard, the decedent in this case, learned that she had cancer and approached Lawson for legal advice as to the disposition of her estate.

Issue

Can a beneficiary under a will bring a malpractice suit against the attorney who drafted the will, and was the attorney competent in his drafting?

Rule

A beneficiary under a will can sue the attorney who drafted the will if the beneficiary is a known third party, and the attorney must demonstrate competency in the drafting process.

An action will lie by a beneficiary under a will against the attorney who drafted that will on the basis that the beneficiary is a known third party.

Analysis

The court found that Lawson was aware of the legal limitations regarding a spouse's rights to a statutory share and that he acted within the bounds of the law when drafting the will. The court determined that Lawson's actions were appropriate given the circumstances and that he did not breach any duty to Sybille or her beneficiaries.

As we view the case, at the time Sybille came to Lawson, she was aware of the fact that she had cancer and in fact she did die within the year. There could be little doubt but that the conversation between Lawson and Sybille addressed the dilemma of how she was to dispose of her estate in contemplation of death.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that Lawson was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

It is the judgment of this Court that the trial court did not err in concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that Lawson was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Who won?

John W. Lawson prevailed in the case because the court found that he acted competently in drafting the will and did not breach any legal duty.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals is set aside and the trial court is affirmed.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Reid v. Estate of Sonder, 63 So.3d 7, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D611

Staples v. Mead, 152 A.D. 745, 137 N.Y.S. 847

Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243, 551 N.E.2d 1249

Swain v. Estate of Tyre ex rel. Reilly, 57 A.3d 283

Burnett v. First Commercial Trust Co., 327 Ark. 430, 939 S.W.2d 827