Pierce

Pierce v. Lyman

Bad Law
1 Cal. App. 4th 1093·1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1440·3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 236·91 Daily Journal DAR 15781·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9991
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 19, 1991B051786California6,069 words

Opinion

Opinion

Grignon, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment (orders of dismissal) following two orders sustaining, without leave to amend, two separate demurrers to appellants’ second amended complaint. That complaint sought over $2 million in damages in connection with the dissipation of assets of a testamentary trust through improper and imprudent investments by the former trustees of the trust, together with their attorneys, investment advisers, investment managers, stockbrokers, and others. The question presented in this appeal is whether respondent attorneys owed a duty to the beneficiaries of the trust and, thus, whether it was error to sustain the demurrers for failure to state a cause of action against them. We reverse.

Facts

The second amended complaint, filed on June 6, 1990, reveals the following facts which, for purposes of this appeal, we assume to be true. (Bloomberg v. Interinsurance Exchange (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 571, 574 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 853 ].) Plaintiff and appellant Kathleen M. Pierce is the trustee of the MacNeel Pierce Testamentary Trust (the Trust). She is also an income beneficiary of the Trust. Plaintiff and appellant John Schlanger is the guardian ad litem of the minor…

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.