Vermont's highest court rules that an attorney who drafted a will for a client and then was sued by the client's son for legal malpractice does not owe a duty to prospective beneficiaries of undrafted, unexecuted wills. Strong v. Fitzpatrick (Vt., No. 2016-270, May 12, 2017).
William Strong's mother married a man who owned a piece of property that included a house as well as an undeveloped piece of land. Mr. Strong lived with his mother and stepfather in the house and took care of them. After Mr. Strong's stepfather died, his mother inherited the entire property. She executed a will that left the property to her three children equally. Mr. Strong informed his mother that his stepfather had told him he would inherit the house portion of the property because of the work he had done on it. Mr. Strong's mother met with attorney Edward Fitzpatrick and indicated that she wanted to change her will and leave the house to her son, but she never followed through.
After his mother died, Mr. Strong sued Mr. Fitzpatrick for legal malpractice for failing to draft a codicil for her will reflecting her intent. Mr. Fitzpatrick countered that he did not owe a duty to Mr. Strong. The trial court granted Mr. Fitzpatrick summary judgment, and Mr. Strong appealed.
The Vermont Supreme Court affirms, holding that an attorney does not owe a duty to prospective beneficiaries of undrafted, unexecuted wills. The court rules that imposing a duty on attorneys "to prospective beneficiaries of undrafted, unexecuted wills could invite claims premised on improper speculation regarding the testator’s intent" and "could pressure those attorneys to promptly or summarily execute a will to benefit the prospective beneficiaries."
For the full text of this decision, go to: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/op16-270.pdf
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 2,000 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here.