Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, PA v. McAdam
965 So.2d 182 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Beneficiaries of an estate have standing to sue a decedent's estate planning attorney for malpractice when the attorney's negligence frustrates the testator's intent and diminishes the beneficiaries' inheritance. A malpractice suit seeking damages unavailable in probate court is not an improper collateral attack on the probate court's administrative orders.
Facts:
- Charles V. McAdam, Jr. retained the law firm Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. for estate planning services.
- His sons, Charles McAdam, III, and Frank Gannett McAdam, alleged that Gunster Yoakley wrongfully procured the appointment of J.P. Morgan Trust Company as the corporate fiduciary for their father's estate.
- The sons claimed that J.P. Morgan's appointment as fiduciary caused the estate administration to be unnecessarily expensive.
- The sons also asserted that Gunster Yoakley had implicitly agreed to, but failed to, fund a revocable trust during their father's lifetime.
- As a direct result of the law firm's alleged negligence and the increased expenses, the sons claimed their inheritance was diminished.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles and Frank McAdam sued Gunster Yoakley and J.P. Morgan in a Florida trial court for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and other claims.
- The McAdams settled their claims against J.P. Morgan.
- The trial court denied Gunster Yoakley's motion for partial summary judgment, which argued that the McAdams lacked standing to sue.
- The case against Gunster Yoakley proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a $1.2 million verdict for the McAdams.
- The trial court granted remittitur, entering a final judgment against Gunster Yoakley for $1,043,430.
- Gunster Yoakley, as appellant, appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, and the McAdams, as appellees, filed a cross-appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do beneficiaries of an estate have standing to bring a legal malpractice action against the decedent's attorney for negligence that allegedly increased estate administration costs and diminished their inheritance, even after a probate court has approved the administrative actions?
Opinions:
Majority - Polen, J.
Yes. Beneficiaries have standing to sue the decedent's attorney for malpractice that diminishes their inheritance. The court reasoned that the malpractice suit was not an improper collateral attack on the probate court's orders because the beneficiaries sought relief—money damages for negligence—that was not available to them in the probate proceedings. The beneficiaries established standing by showing that their father's testamentary intent was frustrated by the attorney's negligence and that, as a direct result, their legacy was diminished. The court also found there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the law firm implicitly agreed to fund a revocable trust, thereby creating a duty to do so.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle in Florida law that intended beneficiaries of an estate plan can sue the decedent's attorney for malpractice, extending the concept of attorney duty beyond the strict confines of privity. It clarifies that administrative approvals in probate court do not shield an attorney from liability for negligence that caused financial harm to beneficiaries, such as by increasing administrative costs. The case serves as a precedent that separates the administrative function of probate from the tortious conduct of an attorney, ensuring beneficiaries have a remedy for malpractice that directly reduces their inheritance.
