Williams v. Bryan, Cave, McPheeters, McRoberts
| Decision Date | 30 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 55755,55755 |
| Citation | 774 S.W.2d 847 |
| Parties | Virginia WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRYAN, CAVE, McPHEETERS, McROBERTS, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 12, 1989.
Henry Boardman Hine, Clayton, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Joseph M. Kortenhof and Thomas L. Stewart, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.
Plaintiffs, Virginia Williams, et. al., as intended beneficiaries under a will, brought an action against defendants, Bryan, Cave, McPheeters, McRoberts, et. al. (attorneys), for failure to prepare a will in accordance with the instructions of Alma Ida Stentz (testatrix) prior to her death. Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of their action against attorneys for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.
In reviewing a dismissal based solely on the pleadings, we accept the facts pleaded and all the reasonable inferences arising therefrom as true. If, viewed in that manner, the allegations invoke substantive principles of law which may entitle the pleader to relief, the petition should not be dismissed. Lynn v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., Inc., 710 S.W.2d 359, 360 (Mo.App.1986). This case was not a summary judgment action pursuant to Rule 74.04, but was based solely on the allegations contained in the pleadings. See Id.
The facts, as gleaned from the petition and the wills attached thereto, are that plaintiffs were the granddaughter and great-grandchildren of testatrix. Plaintiffs filed this action against the attorneys who drafted testatrix' will, seeking money damages in two counts: Count I sounded in negligence; Count II in contract.
Specifically, Count I of the petition alleged that attorneys were negligent in the preparation of testatrix' will in that attorneys failed to include the exercise of the power of appointment given under an inter vivos trust established by the late husband of testatrix and failed to inform testatrix either of this omission or of the effect of such an omission. Plaintiffs also alleged that, at the time testatrix executed the will, she did not have the requisite mental capacity to make a valid will. As a result of the attorneys' negligence, they were deprived of the benefit of the exercise of the power of appointment in their favor which testatrix had exercised in their favor in a prior will executed in 1969.
Count II of the petition alleged that plaintiffs were the intended beneficiaries of the exercise of the power of appointment under the inter vivos trust of the testatrix' late husband. By failing to incorporate the exercise of the power of appointment by testatrix into the 1982 will, attorneys breached their agreement with testatrix to provide legal services.
Defendants moved to dismiss both counts of plaintiffs' action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court sustained defendants' motion.
Plaintiffs' sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in dismissing Counts I and II of their petition. They posit that, as the intended beneficiaries under testatrix' will, they have a cause of action against attorneys for damages resulting from attorneys' negligence in drafting testatrix' will.
Here, plaintiffs' position is that the 1969 will manifests the testamentary intent of testatrix to exercise the power of appointment in favor of plaintiffs and that the 1982 will is invalid because it does not represent testatrix' intent. 1 Where the alleged tort involves superseding one will with another, a concurrent tort action would offend the probate code by requiring the trial court in the tort action to accept one document as testatrix's valid will and to reject another document as not her will. See McMullin v. Borgers, 761 S.W.2d 718, 719 (Mo.App.1988). Since a successful will contest would replace the 1982 will with the 1969 will, plaintiffs would receive their full expectancies and would suffer no actual damages. See Id. at 720. An unsuccessful will contest, on the other hand, would render the 1982 will valid and plaintiffs would be collaterally estopped from relitigating the validity of the 1982 will in a concurrent or subsequent tort action. 2 Where, as in this case, a will contest provides a complete remedy, a tort action against attorneys for negligence will not lie.
Plaintiffs allege, however, that they are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barcelo v. Elliott
...and contract. See Ogle, 80 Ill.Dec. at 775, 466 N.E.2d at 227; Hale, 744 P.2d at 1292.1 See Williams v. Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, 774 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Mo.Ct.App.1989); St. Mary's Church v. Tomek, 212 Neb. 728, 325 N.W.2d 164, 165 (1982); Viscardi v. Lerner, 125 A.D.2d 662, 510 N.......
-
Commerce Bank, N.A. v. Blasdel
...the same remedy and prevents any additional damages[.]" Id. The Eastern District followed McMullin in Williams v. Bryan, Cave, McPheeters, McRoberts, 774 S.W.2d 847 (Mo.App. E.D. 1989), where it held that a negligence action for damages resulting from an attorneys' alleged negligence in dra......
-
Collins v. Missouri Bar Plan
...simply because their attorneys were negligent. They chose to mitigate their damages. The lawyers rely on Williams v. Bryan, Cave, McPheeters, McRoberts, 774 S.W.2d 847 (Mo.App.1989), for the proposition that a party cannot sue his or her attorney for malpractice when the party has a complet......
-
Donahue v. Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.
...against the attorney when the intended beneficiary is damaged as a result of attorney negligence. Williams v. Bryan, Cave, McPheeters, McRoberts, 774 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Mo.App.1989). case, Donahue and McClung, have standing to bring a legal malpractice action against Stamper and the law firm ......