Breton v. Clyde, Snow & Sessions
299 P.3d 13
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Breton, a cotrustee of the Testamentary Grandchildren’s Trust, hired Clyde Snow & Sessions to advise on intra-family disputes and potential releases among beneficiaries.
- Clyde Snow drafted releases for 15 beneficiaries to be signed in exchange for $24,000, aiming for an all-or-nothing settlement.
- Twelve beneficiaries signed; three Slater Brothers did not sign but intended to, preserving their potential claims.
- Breton and three cotrustees paid the twelve signatories $24,000 in February 2005, despite the Slater Brothers’ pending signatures and potential lawsuits.
- The Slater Brothers later filed a California suit (settled 2009); Breton sued Clyde Snow in 2009 alleging negligence and breach of contract, focusing on drafting the release and consequent advice.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Clyde Snow, ruling an intervening cause—Breton’s decision to distribute without all signatures—broke causation; Breton appealed seeking reversal on causation grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact on causation. | Breton argues the release was ineffectively drafted and advice lacking, creating an economic incentive for the Slater Brothers to sue. | Clyde Snow contends the release and advice were not the proximate cause; the intervening act of Breton paying without all signatures breaks causation. | No genuine issue; causation as a matter of law favored Clyde Snow. |
| Whether the district court correctly treated intervening cause as dispositive. | Breton contends the all-or-nothing release created material facts about causation. | Intervening cause analysis supports that Breton’s payment was the superseding cause. | Intervening cause proper; district court did not err. |
| Whether Clyde Snow could be liable for an ineffective release and inadequate advice. | Breton asserts negligent drafting and failure to advise, causing the incentive to sue. | Release drafting and advice were not shown to be legally ineffective to sustain causation. | Court did not decide breach; summary judgment on causation affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilpatrick v. Wiley, Rein & Fielding, 909 P.2d 1283 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (causation and intervening cause framework in summary judgment review)
- Harline v. Barker, 912 P.2d 433 (Utah 1996) (proximate cause and requirement of causation in malpractice)
- Crestwood Cove Apartments Bus. Trust v. Turner, 164 P.3d 1247 (Utah 2007) (proximity of causation and elements of legal malpractice")
- Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 97 cmt. c, (2012) () (consent or release does not preclude other beneficiaries from holding trustee liable)
- Dee v. Johnson, 286 P.3d 22 (Utah App. 2012) (summary judgment appropriate where undisputed facts show no causation)
- Christensen & Jensen, PC v. Barrett & Daines, 194 P.3d 931 (Utah 2008) (causation as a matter of law where facts are undisputed)
- Bansasine v. Bodell, 927 P.2d 675 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (affirming summary judgment where intervening cause foreseen or not)