Other Estate Planning Matters

Malpractice

Reversed by Supreme Court of Texas on May 5, 2006.

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.



Back