Disappointed after death?
Disappointed beneficiaries attempt to attack a will on numerous grounds. Among those that are commonly targeted are the attorneys who drafted the testamentary documents. Although an action for legal malpractice is prohibited in the Commonwealth for those not in privity with the attorney, a seemingly related cause of action for breach of contract by an intended third party beneficiary is allowed in extremely limited circumstances. Such a cause of action dates back to 1983 where it was recognized in the Guy v. Liederback, 459 A2d 744 (Pa. April 29, 1983) decision.
In the Guy matter, a devisee under a will was prohibited from taking her intended legacy under New Jersey state law as a result of also being a subscribing witness to the will. While the facts of the case do not demonstrate that the attorney intentionally acted to prevent the intended beneficiary from inheriting, it was found that the New Jersey statue in affect at the time the will was executed was that a named legacy in the will could not also be a subscribing witness.
The Court in the Guy matter stated that “persons who were named beneficiaries under a will and who lost the intended legacy due to the failure of an attorney to properly draft the instrument should not be left without recourse or remedy…” This narrow provision though should not be confused for a legal malpractice claim even though there is mention of a failure by the attorney.
The cause of action only arises when the intended beneficiary is denied a gift, not simply when the gift was diminished or delayed. Such was reiterated in the 2007 decision Hess v. Fox Rothchild, 925 A2d 798 (Pa. Super May 14, 2007) reh'g denied July 11, 2007, where the beneficiaries of a residuary trust brought a cause of action against the attorney who drafted the testamentary documents. From the time of testator’s death, until the assets were distributed to the residuary beneficiaries more than five million dollars was withdrawn. The beneficiaries asserted a cause of action against the attorney for failing to properly draft the trust and will in a way to prevent misuse of the assets by the widower.
The court recognized the Hess action was an improper attempt to challenge to the will on behalf of disappointed legatees and stated that there was no cause of action because the frustrated beneficiaries “did not plead that they lost their intended legacy as provided by the text of Mrs. Rosewater’s will, we conclude the Appellants do not fall into the narrow class of legatees upon whom standing is conferred under Gray to bring suit for breach of contract against the testator’s attorney.”
This narrow cause of action against an attorney has been consistently limited to the complete loss of an inheritance due to the attorney’s mistake or neglect and not simply a reduction.
