Nicholas A. Anagnostis retained the law firm of Mahoney, Hawkes & Goldings to draft a deed, a will and an inter vivos trust for his stepfather, Berj H. Seron. No attorney from the firm ever met with Mr. Seron or determined the extent of his assets, relying instead on the stepson''s representations concerning the testator''s desires. Mr. Seron reviewed the documents and made several changes in them over the course of several drafts that passed back and forth between him and the firm. The effect of the final, signed documents was that Mr. Seron''s child, grandchild and sisters received nothing. Mr. Seron did place investment artwork in a revocable trust that designated his daughter, Marcia Seron Tetrault, and his granddaughter each as 50 percent income beneficiaries of the trust, and the will made the trust a beneficiary of 40 percent of his residuary estate. His two sisters were to receive a 5 percent interest in the residue of his estate. Mr. Seron died in September 1990 without preparing a list of artwork that was to go into the trust, so the trust was largely unfunded at the time of his death.
In November 1990, the probate court allowed the will and his daughter assented to its probate. Ms. Tetrault, the granddaughter and the two sisters sued the firm, claiming that the firm was negligent in preparing and attending to the execution of the documents for failing to advise Mr. Seron of the practical effect of his estate plan and or ascertain whether it was his intent. They also sued Mr. Seron''s wife and his stepson, alleging fraud, among other things. A Superior Court judge allowed the defendants'' motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed.
While admonishing that "[o]ur conclusion does not mean that we approve of the professional conduct of the lawyers in this case," the court affirms the lower court''s summary judgment. It notes that the plaintiffs produced nothing to contest affidavits of the stepson and wife concerning Mr. Seron''s intent. The court disallows the negligence claim because the attorney was not engaged in trade or commerce with the plaintiffs. The court also finds no reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs would bear the burden of proof of fraud at trial.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
