Beshears v. Wood, 3:16-cv-05109

Background

Plaintiff John M. Beshears alleges Defendant Andrew P. Wood (a Missouri-licensed attorney) committed legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty/constructive fraud related to probate proceedings that began after Beshears' 2009 automobile accident and conservatorship appointment.
The Reynolds filed the guardianship/conservatorship petition; the probate court appointed them on July 7, 2009; Beshears was restored to full capacity on October 3, 2012.
Beshears pleads that Wood had been his "personal and professional" attorney for years and represented him in a separate civil case (Beshears v. Clark & Sons) through July 19, 2012.
Beshears alleges specific negligent acts/omissions by Wood in the probate proceedings that caused loss/damage to assets and emotional harm; he seeks actual and punitive damages.
Wood moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (collateral attack; Rooker–Feldman/Younger) and failure to state claims (Count 2 subsumed by malpractice; Count 1 lacks attorney-client relationship). The court granted dismissal for failure to state a claim, without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity)	Complaint pleads diversity; federal court may hear malpractice claims	Action is collateral attack on probate orders; Rooker–Feldman/Younger bar federal review	Diversity jurisdiction sufficiently pled; court rejects collateral-attack/Rooker–Feldman/Younger defenses on these facts
Whether Count 2 (breach of fiduciary duty/constructive fraud) is viable	Breach of fiduciary duty alleged separately from malpractice	Fiduciary claim is subsumed by malpractice under Missouri law	Dismissed: fiduciary/constructive fraud duplicative of malpractice; Count 2 dismissed
Whether Count 1 (legal malpractice) pleads attorney-client relationship	Allegations that Wood was Beshears’ "personal attorney" and represented him in a separate civil case suffice	Wood represented the Reynolds in probate; Beshears hired another attorney for probate; representation in unrelated matters insufficient	Dismissed: complaint fails to plead facts establishing attorney-client relationship in probate matter; Count 1 dismissed
Dismissal with or without prejudice	(implicit) seeks to proceed if facts support claims	Wood asked dismissal with prejudice as futile	Court dismissed without prejudice, allowing possible amendment

Key Cases Cited

Turner v. Armontrout, 922 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1991) (subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold requirement)
Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state-court judgments)
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (limits on federal review of state court decisions)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (abstention to avoid federal interference with ongoing state proceedings)
Lemonds v. St. Louis Cty., 222 F.3d 488 (8th Cir. 2000) (application of Rooker–Feldman analysis)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain factual content supporting plausible claim)
Klemme v. Best, 941 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. en banc 1997) (elements of legal malpractice and rule that fiduciary claim is subsumed when facts overlap)
Donahue v. Shughart, Thompson & Kilroy, P.C., 900 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. en banc 1995) (representation in unrelated matters does not establish representation on other matters)
France v. Podleski, 303 S.W.3d 615 (Mo. App. 2010) (attorney for guardian/conservator owes no duty to the ward)
Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Daniel Clampett Powell & Cunningham, LLC, 196 S.W.3d 595 (Mo. App. 2006) (belief in an attorney-client relationship is insufficient without factual support)
Ashanti v. City of Golden Valley, 666 F.3d 1148 (8th Cir. 2012) (courts may consider documents embraced by the complaint on a motion to dismiss)
Horras v. Am. Capital Strategies, Ltd., 729 F.3d 798 (8th Cir. 2013) (Rule 8(a) pleading requirements)