Ward v. Arnold, 34503
| Decision Date | 10 July 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 34503,34503 |
| Citation | 52 Wn.2d 581,328 P.2d 164 |
| Parties | Ella M. WARD, Appellant, v. S. Dean ARNOLD, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
McKevitt, Snyder & Thomas, Spokane for appellant.
F. L. Stotler, Colfax, V. R. Clements, Lewiston, Idaho, of counsel, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon an order sustaining a demurrer to a complaint alleging malpractice by an attorney at law. It was alleged that on July 7, 1953, the plaintiff had employed the defendant to draw a will for her husband, whereby she would be made the beneficiary of the residue of his estate; that the defendant had contacted her husband and ascertained that he desired to execute such a will, and that the defendant had prepared such a will and mailed it to the plaintiff with the following note attached:
'All three (Babe and the two witnesses) must all be present and sign in the presence of the other two.'
According to the allegations the plaintiff's husband had executed the will, but not in the presence by witnesses, and she had neglected to have the will properly executed because the attorney had advised her that a will was unnecessary and that, by law, if her husband died intestate, she would receive the residue. It was alleged that when she asked him if he were sure of this fact, he answered affirmatively and stated that it would affect only the amount of inheritance tax.
It was further alleged that the defendant well knew that the plaintiff's husband was the owner of a substantial amount of separate property obtained by inheritance from an estate which the defendant had probated; that the defendant knew or, if possessed of reasonable knowledge and exercising reasonable care under the standards of practice in the community, should have known that under the laws of the state of Washington if her husband died intestate, the plaintiff would inherit only half of his separate estate; that the remaining half would pass by inheritance to her husband's brother; that the execution or non-execution of a will would not affect the amount of inheritance tax payable, and that there was no objection to attestation of a will by nurses or doctors.
It was further alleged that the husband possessed testmentary capacity and was ready, willing, and able to execute the will, but that the plaintiff, relying upon the advice of the defendant that a will was unnecessary and solely because of such advice, failed to have the will properly executed. Finally, it was alleged that the plaintiff's husband, who had been hospitalized at all times since a date prior to July 7, 1953, died intestate on August 17, 1953, and that as a result of his intestacy, property having a fair market value of $15,262.50 went by inheritance to his brother, and that this property would have passed to the plaintiff by will if the same had been executed as required by law, and that by reason thereof, the plaintiff had been damaged in the sum of $15,262.50.
The record does not reveal the theory upon which the trial court sustained the demurrer, but the respondent, in support of the judgment, advances two objections to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boguch v. Landover Corp.
...action usually do not differ from an ordinary negligence case." Daugert, 104 Wash.2d at 257, 704 P.2d 600 (citing Ward v. Arnold, 52 Wash.2d 581, 584, 328 P.2d 164 (1958)). Proof only of an attorney's negligence is insufficient for malpractice liability to attach. A client must show that, i......
-
Parks v. Fink
...fully signed and executed); Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal.2d 583, 588–89, 15 Cal.Rptr. 821, 364 P.2d 685 (1961) (same); Ward v. Arnold, 52 Wash.2d 581, 584–85, 328 P.2d 164 (1958) (widow relied on attorney's faulty advice that a will was unnecessary and failed to have a will properly executed by he......
-
Berman v. Rubin, 51940
...care and diligence'); Glenn v. Haynes, 191 Va. 571, 581, 66 S.E.2d 509, 513 ('reasonable degree of care and skill'); Ward v. Arnold, 52 Wash.2d 581, 584, 328 P.2d 164, 167 ('reasonable amount of skill and Although he is not an insurer of the documents he drafts, 3 the attorney may breach hi......
-
Hansen v. Wightman
...by a reasonable, careful and prudent lawyer in the practice of law in this jurisdiction. The court, in Ward v. Arnold, 52 Wash.2d 581, at page 584, 328 P.2d 164, at page 167 (1958), had An attorney at law, when he enters into the employ of another person as such, undertakes that he possesse......
-
Chapter c. undue influence
...to accept employment to draft a third party's will under which the client is a beneficiary. See also Ward v. Arnold, 52 Wn.2d . 581, 328 P.2d 164 (1958). 269 See, e.g., In re Sinclair's Estate, 8 Wn.2d 611, 113 P.2d 65 (1941). 270 In re Estate ofReilly, 78 Wn.2d 623, 479 P.2d 1 (1970). 271 ......
-
Table of Cases
...(2005), review denied, 156 Wn.2d 1008 (2006): 6.3(2) W____________________________________________________________________ Ward v. Arnold, 52 Wn.2d 581, 328 P.2d 164 (1958): 14.2(4) Ward v. Richards & Rossano, Inc., 51 Wn. App. 423, 754 P.2d 120 (1988): 3.3(3) Wash. Constr., Inc. v. Sterlin......
-
Chapter Elements of a Legal
...Martin, Todd & Hokanson, 95 Wn. App. 231, 235-36, 974 P.2d 1275 (1999), review denied, 140 Wn.2d 1007 (2000). 100. See Ward v. Arnold, 52 Wn.2d 581, 584, 328 P.2d 164 (1958) ("[T]he law does not require that negligence of the defendant [lawyer] must be the sole cause of the injury complaine......
-
Chapter 17
...295 Walsh v. Reynolds, 183 Wn. App. 830, 335 P.3d 984 (2014), review denied, 182 Wn.2d 1017 (2015): 329 Ward v. Arnold, 52 Wn.2d. 581, 328 P.2d 164 (1958): 100 Wash. Escrow Co. v. Blair, 40 Wn.2d 432, 243 P.2d 1044 (1952): 172, 173 Wash. Fed. Sav. v. Klein, 177 Wn. App. 22, 311 P.3d 53 (201......