A Pennsylvania appeals court holds that beneficiaries who are not named in a trust still have standing to sue the attorney who prepared the trust as third-party beneficiaries if they can prove they were intended beneficiaries. Agnew v. Ross (Pa. Super. Ct., No. 2195 EDA 2014, Feb. 2, 2015).
Robert Agnew hired attorney Daniel Ross to draft his estate plan. In 2010, Mr. Agnew asked Mr. Ross to make changes to his estate plan, including an amendment to his trust to leave the residue to his nieces and nephews instead of to charity. After Mr. Ross prepared the amendments, he met with Mr. Agnew, but Mr. Ross did not bring the 2010 trust amendment with him, so Mr. Agnew did not execute it before his death.
Mr. Agnew's nieces and nephews sued Mr. Ross, arguing that he breached his contract with Mr. Agnew. The trial court granted Mr. Ross summary judgment, holding that Mr. Agnew's relatives did not have standing to sue as third-party beneficiaries because there was no document that named them as beneficiaries. The relatives appealed.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, an intermediate appellate court, reverses, holding that beneficiaries who are not named in a will or trust may still have standing to pursue a breach of contract action against the attorney who prepared the document if circumstances indicate the testator intended to name the beneficiaries. The court finds that there was evidence that Mr. Ross intended to give Mr. Agnew's nieces and nephews the benefit of his contract with Mr. Agnew.
For the full text of this decision, go to: https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-S79043-14o%20-%201020941913075333.pdf?cb=1
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.
