A California court of appeals rules that if a client who is drafting a trust clearly intends to benefit a certain beneficiary, then the client's attorney owes a duty of care to the beneficiary. Paul v. Patton (Ca. Ct. App., 6th App. Dist., No. H040646, April 9, 2015).
Gilbert Paul hired attorney Richard Patton to draft an amendment to his revocable living trust. Mr. Paul intended to leave his brokerage accounts and personal property to his children instead of his wife. Due to a clerical error, the trust amendment gave Mr. Paul's wife an interest in the property. The children challenged the trust and reached a settlement with Mr. Paul's wife in which she received more than Mr. Paul intended.
Mr. Paul's children sued the attorney for professional negligence, but their complaint failed to allege that Mr. Patton owed them a duty of care. The trial court ruled that Mr. Patton did not, as a matter of law, owe a duty to the children, so the court did not allow them to amend their complaint to allege a duty. The children appealed.
The California Court of Appeals reverses, holding that if a testator's intent to benefit a beneficiary is clear, then the attorney owes a duty to the beneficiary. The court rules that the children may amend their complaint to allege that Mr. Patton owed them a duty.
For the full text of this decision, go to: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H040646.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.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
