The Supreme Court of Maryland holds that a testamentary beneficiary cannot sue an attorney for malpractice because she was not a third-party beneficiary of the attorney-client relationship. In Bennett v. Gentile (Md. No. 25, August 12, 2024).
Pauline Bennett hired an attorney, Thomas Gentile, to create her estate plan. She executed her first trust in 2015. It stated that her Wissahican property could be used for the sole benefit of her daughter Audrey Bennett-Eney and that the property would be distributed to her upon the grantor’s death. In 2017, Mrs. Bennett executed a new trust instrument, which left the Wissahican provision unchanged. However, it stated that she had transferred the Wissahican property to the trust.
After learning that her daughter Audrey had financially abused her, Ms. Bennett sought to revise her estate plan. Mr. Gentile drafted a 2019 trust instrument that removed Audrey as a beneficiary and omitted the provisions giving the Wissahican property to her. The new trust made her other daughter, Madelyn Bennett, her primary beneficiary and successor trustee.
Following Ms. Bennett’s death, a dispute arose between Audrey and Madelyn as to the ownership of the Wissahican property. The district court determined that the 2019 trust did not change the 2017 trust with respect to the disposition of the Wissahican property, and therefore, Audrey was the owner.
Madelyn then took action against Mr. Gentile. She alleged that she was an intended third-party beneficiary of the attorney-client agreement and claimed she had been harmed by his professional negligence in drafting the 2019 trust.
On summary judgment, the circuit court ruled in favor of Mr. Gentile. It interpreted the precedent in Noble v. Bruce as providing a bright line rule barring all legal malpractice actions brought by those an attorney did not represent. Madelyn Bennett appealed.
Unrepresented individuals may bring legal malpractice lawsuits against attorneys in certain very limited circumstances. While other jurisdictions have adopted rules creating a larger opening for these types of lawsuits, the doctrine of stare decisis dictates that the court follow its precedent. Under Noble and Ferguson v. Cramer, it is not enough for a beneficiary to be an heir of the decedent. The beneficiary must be a third-party beneficiary to the attorney-client contract or transaction. In order to establish third-party beneficiary status, a beneficiary must prove that the direct purpose of the transaction or relationship was for their benefit.
In this case, Ms. Bennett did not engage Mr. Gentile to draft the 2019 trust for Madelyn’s specific benefit. Instead, her purpose was to disinherit her other daughter.
Since Madelyn’s receipt of the property would be merely incidental to removing Audrey, the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment to Mr. Gentile. The highest court of Maryland affirms.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
