Moore

Moore v. Anderson Zeigler Disharoon Gallagher & Gray, PC

Good Law
109 Cal. App. 4th 1287·135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 922·2003 Daily Journal DAR 6717·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5314
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 20, 2003A099643California8,049 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

In an issue of first impression in this state, we consider whether an attorney has a duty to beneficiaries under a will to evaluate and ascertain the testamentary capacity of a client seeking to amend the will or to make a new will and whether the attorney also has a duty to beneficiaries to preserve evidence of that evaluation. We shall conclude the attorney owes the beneficiaries no such duties.

Facts and Procedural History

Appellants Jeffrey K. Smith, Mark V. Smith, Scott Smith and Maureen Smith-Geoghegan appeal from the judgment dismissing their action for legal malpractice against respondents Attorney Rob Disharoon and the law firm of Anderson Zeigler Disharoon Gallagher & Gray, P.C. (Anderson Zeigler), following the court’s sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. Appellants had sued respondents for malpractice in connection with respondents’ preparation of amendments to the estate plan of appellants’ father, Clyde P. Smith (Clyde). The crux of appellants’ malpractice claim was that Clyde lacked testamentary capacity in June 2000 when he executed the amendments to his estate plan, that respondents should have known that Clyde’s testamentary capacity was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.