Belt v. Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, Inc., 141 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004), rev'd, 192 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. 2006).
Beneficiaries sued Attorneys who prepared Testator’s will asserting
that Attorneys provided negligent advise and drafting services.
Beneficiaries asserted that Testator’s estate incurred over $1.5 million
in unnecessary federal estate taxes because of the malpractice. The
trial court granted Attorneys’ motion for a summary judgment on the
basis that Beneficiaries could not establish that Attorneys owed them a
duty because Beneficiaries were not in privity with Attorneys.
Beneficiaries appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court explained that privity between
Beneficiaries and Attorneys is mandated by Barcelo v. Elliott, 923
S.W.2d 575 (Tex. 1996), and thus the court had no choice but to affirm.
The court stated that it was bound to follow the holding of the Supreme
Court of Texas even though this court “may entertain a contrary
opinion.” Id. at 709.
The Supreme Court of Texas granted a petition for review on April 8,
2005, presumably to revisit its holding in Barcelo. The court heard oral
arguments on September 29, 2005 but as of April 17, 2006, had not
released an opinion. To listen to the oral arguments, follow this link:
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/oralarguments/2004/04-0681.mp3;
to read the briefs, follow this link:
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/04/04068101.pdf.