ILNews

Judges disagree on when duty to exercise ordinary care extends to beneficiaries

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was divided Tuesday on whether a legal malpractice lawsuit filed by third-party beneficiaries of a will against their relative’s attorney should proceed beyond summary judgment. The case hinged on the interpretation of the “known” requirement outlined in Walker v. Lawson.

Mary Linder, through a recommendation by her alma mater Marian College, hired Berton O’Bryan to change her will. Linder told O’Bryan she had a list of items she wanted to leave to various individuals, but the will did not name those people. Linder later filled in a form that O’Bryan gave her that spelled out what her relatives would receive, but it was not dated or signed.

After her death, the probate court investigated the list’s validity, but the relatives in question settled with Linder’s estate and agreed the list was invalid. Those relatives then filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against O’Bryan. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of O’Bryan on his argument he owed the relatives no duty because there’s no evidence that he had actual knowledge they were on the list in question or that they were the intended beneficiaries.

In  Martha Ferguson, Anthony Schmitt, Rebecca Schmitt, Mary Meadows, et al. v. Berton O'Bryan, 49A02-1211-CT-917, the judges had to decide whether O’Bryan’s duty to exercise ordinary care and skill in the preparation of the will extended to the relatives.  The judges cited Walker,  526 N.E.2d 968, 968 (Ind. 1988), in support of their rulings.

“Relatives argue for purposes of the ‘know’ or ‘known’ elements, under Walker v. Lawson, it was enough that Mr. O’Bryan knew that [Linder] wanted to name specific people.  We find this argument persuasive,” Judges Terry Crone and Chief Judge Margret Robb ruled in reversing summary judgment for O’Bryan.  “Article II of Linder’s will conclusively establishes that O’Bryan knew that she intended to benefit third parties, whom she would list on a separate form that he provided to her. To hold that O’Bryan did not owe the Relatives a duty in this situation would immunize and thus encourage even more egregious acts of malpractice, to the detriment of innocent third-party beneficiaries.”

In his dissent, Judge Ezra Friedlander pointed out that the relatives were not named in the will, but just on the list, and Linder could have added a potentially limitless number of unknown individuals to the list.

“Under these circumstances, the rationale underlying the exception for known beneficiaries disappears, and imposing a duty would expose the drafting attorney to precisely the type of unlimited liability the privity rule and the exception set forth in Walker v. Lawson were designed to prevent. Accordingly, I do not believe the Relatives fall within the category of known third parties contemplated by our Supreme Court in Walker v. Lawson,” Friedlander wrote.

“Accordingly, I would hold, and indeed we have always held, that in order to qualify as a known third party, an intended beneficiary must be known and identified at the time the will is drafted. Because the list on which the Relatives were identified was not created until after the will was drafted, they clearly do not fall within this category.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT