924 N.W.2d 799
Wis.2019Background
- Charles MacLeish executed a one‑page will in 1967 leaving his estate to his wife Thelma for "use the income and so much of the principal as she may need" and directing that at Thelma's death the remainder be placed in trust for the children until youngest completes college, then divided equally.
- Attorney Hartmann (later of Boardman & Clark) administered Charles's estate in 1984 and advised Thelma to claim the full federal marital deduction so Charles's estate assets were treated as passing outright to Thelma for federal tax purposes.
- Thelma died in 2008 and her estate paid significant federal estate tax (about $261,343) and incurred additional probate costs.
- Charles’s children sued Boardman for legal malpractice, alleging negligent administration (failure to impose a trust at Charles's death) caused avoidable taxes and expenses.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Boardman on the ground the will did not unambiguously require a trust and thus the children could not show the attorney thwarted the testator’s intent; the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether (1) non‑client beneficiaries may sue under the Auric exception or whether the Restatement (Third) §51 should apply, (2) Auric extends to negligent estate administration, and (3) application of the standard to the will’s language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wisconsin should replace Auric with Restatement (Third) §51 to define duty to nonclients | MacLeish children: adopt Restatement §51 to expand duties to certain nonclients and narrow attorney immunity | Boardman: retain Auric; Restatement would unduly expand liability and conflict with estate planning ethics | Court rejected adoption of Restatement; retained Auric exception as operative standard |
| Whether Auric exception applies to negligent administration (not just drafting/execution) | MacLeish children: Auric should apply to administration claims so beneficiaries can sue if decedent's intent was thwarted | Boardman: Auric was limited to drafting/execution and should not be extended | Court held Auric applies to negligent administration but remains narrow: beneficiary must show attorney thwarted decedent's clear intent |
| Whether Charles's testamentary intent was thwarted (i.e., did will require a trust at his death?) | MacLeish children: will should have been construed to impose a lifetime trust for Thelma with remainder to children; failure to do so caused taxes/damages | Boardman: will unambiguously gave Thelma absolute power to use and dispose of assets; no trust was mandated, so no thwarting of intent | Court held the will unambiguously gave Thelma unrestricted control; no trust was required and testator's clear intent was not thwarted; malpractice claim fails |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate after applying the standard | MacLeish children: factual dispute on damages and wrongful administration precluded summary judgment | Boardman: no genuine issue because absence of required trust is a legal determination; hence no Auric standing | Court affirmed summary judgment because legal interpretation of the will shows no thwarted intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Auric v. Continental Cas. Co., 111 Wis. 2d 507 (Wis. 1983) (established narrow exception allowing a will beneficiary to sue an attorney who negligently drafted or supervised execution of a will)
- Tensfeldt v. Haberman, 319 Wis. 2d 329 (Wis. 2009) (reaffirmed Auric exception is narrow; beneficiary must show attorney thwarted decedent's clear intent)
- Beauchamp v. Kemmeter, 240 Wis. 2d 733 (Ct. App. 2001) (limits on third‑party malpractice claims in estate planning; plaintiffs must be named beneficiaries in executed or similar documents)
- McCarville v. McWilliams (Matter of McWilliams' Estate), 78 Wis. 2d 328 (Wis. 1977) (will interpretation is a question of law when facts undisputed)
- Zweifel (Schomberg v. Gaenslen) (In re Zweifel's Will), 194 Wis. 428 (Wis. 1927) (language giving devisee full power of disposition indicates no trust)