Simpson v. Calivas

NH: Supreme Court
139 NH 1, 650 A. 2d 318 (1994)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An attorney who drafts a will owes a duty of reasonable care to an intended beneficiary and can be held liable for negligence in a malpractice action if the will fails to effectuate the testator's intent. An intended beneficiary may also sue the drafting attorney as a third-party beneficiary for breach of the contract between the attorney and the testator.

Facts:

Robert H. Simpson, Sr. (Robert Sr.) hired attorney Christopher Calivas to draft his will.
Calivas's notes from his consultations with Robert Sr. stated: 'House to wife as a life estate remainder to son, Robert H. Simpson, Jr. ... Remaining land ... to son Robert A. [sic] Simpson, Jr.'
In March 1984, Robert Sr. executed the will drafted by Calivas.
The executed will left all real estate to his son, Robert H. Simpson, Jr. (the plaintiff), except for a life estate in 'our homestead' for his second wife, Roberta C. Simpson.
After Robert Sr.'s death in September 1985, a dispute arose between the plaintiff and his stepmother over whether the term 'homestead' referred only to the house or to all of the decedent's real property, which included over one hundred acres and business buildings.
Following a probate court interpretation that favored the stepmother, the plaintiff paid his stepmother $400,000 to purchase her life estate in all the real property.

Procedural Posture:

Robert H. Simpson, Jr. (plaintiff) and his stepmother filed a joint petition in the Strafford County Probate Court for a will construction.
The probate court found the term 'homestead' ambiguous and, after admitting some extrinsic evidence, construed the will to provide the stepmother with a life estate in all of the decedent's real property.
The plaintiff then sued the drafting attorney, Christopher Calivas (defendant), in the New Hampshire Superior Court, alleging negligence and breach of contract.
The Superior Court dismissed the action, ruling that an attorney who drafts a will owes no duty to intended beneficiaries.
The Superior Court also granted summary judgment for the defendant on collateral estoppel grounds and, after the plaintiff presented his case to a jury, granted a directed verdict for the defendant for failure to introduce evidence of damages.
The plaintiff, Robert H. Simpson, Jr., appealed to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an attorney who drafts a will owe a duty of care to an intended beneficiary, such that the beneficiary can sue the attorney for malpractice if the will negligently fails to effectuate the testator's intent?

Opinions:

Majority - Horton, J.

Yes. An attorney who drafts a testator’s will owes a duty of reasonable care to intended beneficiaries. The court holds that although there is no privity of contract between the drafting attorney and an intended beneficiary, the obvious foreseeability of injury to the beneficiary demands an exception to the privity rule. The court explicitly rejects a narrower rule that would limit liability to cases where the testator's intent as expressed in the will was frustrated. Instead, an intended beneficiary states a cause of action by pleading sufficient facts to show that the attorney negligently failed to effectuate the testator's intent as expressed to the attorney, which may be proven by extrinsic evidence. Furthermore, the court holds that an identified intended beneficiary has standing to sue for breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between the testator and the attorney. The court also found that the probate court's prior ruling did not collaterally estop the malpractice action because the issues were not identical; the probate court's limited role is to determine the testator's intent as expressed in the will, while the malpractice action seeks to determine the testator's actual intent.

Analysis:

This decision aligns New Hampshire with the modern majority of jurisdictions by abandoning the strict privity requirement in legal malpractice cases involving will drafting. By allowing intended beneficiaries to sue a drafting attorney directly for negligence, the court significantly enhances beneficiary protection. The ruling's allowance of extrinsic evidence—such as the attorney's own notes—to prove the testator's actual intent broadens the scope of potential malpractice claims beyond the four corners of the will, placing a higher standard of care on attorneys to ensure testamentary documents accurately reflect their clients' wishes.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Simpson v. Calivas (1994)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature