The Supreme Court of Idaho rules that an attorney cannot be held liable for malpractice for drafting a will that left a beneficiary an interest in trust funds when no trust existed, holding that attorneys do not have an ongoing duty to monitor the legal status of property mentioned in a testamentary instrument. Soignier v. Fletcher (Idaho, No. 37123, June 30, 2011).
Zachary Cowan was the beneficiary of the Leonarda A. Cowan Trust until he turned 50 years old, at which point the trust terminated and the property was distributed directly to him. Shortly after Mr. Cowan signed a final release and discharge agreement to this effect, he asked his lawyer, W. Kent Fletcher, to prepare his will. The will's residuary clause stated that the "rest, residue and remainder" of Mr. Cowan's property "other than beneficial interests in trusts" pass to the American Cancer Society. The clause went on to leave "all beneficial interests that I have in any trusts" to Mary K. Soignier. At the time that he executed the will, and at the time of his death several years later, Mr. Cowan had no interest in any trust, since his previous interest in the Cowan Trust had already terminated.
After Mr. Cowan died, Ms. Soignier sued Attorney Fletcher for malpractice, alleging that Mr. Cowan had intended to leave the proceeds from the trust to her and that the residual clause was improperly drafted and frustrated his intent. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Attorney Fletcher, and also awarded him attorney's fees. Ms. Soignier appealed, arguing that Attorney Fletcher negligently failed to investigate whether Mr. Cowan actually had an interest in a trust when he drafted the will and that Mr. Fletcher should have explained to Mr. Cowan that the former trust property would pass to the American Cancer Society.
The Supreme Court of Idaho rules that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Attorney Fletcher but that it should not have awarded attorney's fees because Mr. Fletcher and Ms. Soignier were not engaged in a commercial transaction. On the malpractice issue, the court explains that "[i]t is immaterial to Soignier's legal-malpractice claim whether she believes that Cowan intended to leave her assets that he did not identify in his will. . . Attorneys do not have to postulate whether a testator intended to do something other than what is expressed in the will. . . attorneys have no ongoing duty to monitor the legal status of the property mentioned in a testamentary instrument."
For the full text of this decision, go to: https://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/Soignier%20SUB.pdf
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 1,800 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
