Professional Negligence Law Reporter

A Missouri appellate court held that a lawyer was not liable to the children of an estate planning client who died without amending her trust.

A.F. and her husband, who had four living children, drafted a revocable living trust, listing the children as beneficiaries. After the husband’s death, A.F. retained attorney Mark Easley, who prepared a second amendment to the trust. One of the children later died, and A.F. sought to change the trust to evenly split the deceased child’s share among the three living children. Easley never met with A.F. to ascertain her intentions, however, and A.F. died without amending the trust.

Two of A.F.’s living children sued Easley, alleging legal negligence. The plaintiffs asserted that Easley had failed to consult with A.F. and timely prepare a third amendment to the trust. But for the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiffs claimed, they each would have received one half of their deceased sibling’s portion of the trust. The defendant moved successfully for summary judgment.

Affirming, the appellate court held that an attorney, with limited exceptions, owes no actionable duty to a nonparty to the attorney-client relationship. Citing case law, the court found that an exception to the general rule requiring privity in the form of an attorney-client relationship is for intended beneficiaries of executed, but failed, testamentary transfers. Those nonclients, the court said, may sue the donor’s attorney for legal negligence.

Applying these principles here, the court found that summary judgment was proper because the privity exception did not apply to the plaintiffs’ claim. A.F. failed to execute a third amendment to her trust before her death, the court said, emphasizing that attorneys do not owe a duty of care to nonclient prospective beneficiaries of unexecuted testamentary documents. To hold otherwise would compromise the attorney’s duty of loyalty, the court found. Moreover, the court noted that without proper proof of A.F.’s intent to benefit the plaintiffs, they could not prove at trial that the defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to draft and execute the amended trust proximately caused the plaintiffs’ damages.

Citation: Fallon v. Easley, 2024 WL 923970 (Mo. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2024).