Higgins v. Thurber
14 A.3d 745
| N.J. | 2011Background
- In a Bergen County probate accounting proceeding concerning an estate trust of plaintiffs' father, Thurber intervened near a firm trial date.
- Plaintiffs alleged in exceptions to accounting that there were facts supporting a potential legal malpractice claim against Thurber.
- Appellate Division held the legal malpractice claim was not precluded by the entire controversy doctrine and reversed an entry of summary judgment for Thurber.
- Supreme Court affirmed, adopting the Appellate Division's reasoning and emphasizing probate accounting's focus on executor conduct rather than others' conduct.
- The Court noted that no party pled legal malpractice in the probate action, no affidavit of merit was submitted, and expert reports addressed executor conduct rather than malpractice.
- The Court concluded that belated intervention by Thurber presents equitable reasons against applying the entire controversy doctrine in this probate context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the entire controversy doctrine bar the malpractice claim? | Higgins contends the doctrine should not bar the claim. | Thurber argues the doctrine precludes later malpractice claims arising from the same dispute. | Not barred; equitable reasons to avoid applying the doctrine in probate. |
| Can a probate accounting proceeding be expanded to encompass a malpractice claim? | Accounting focus does not necessarily preclude malpractice claims elsewhere. | Accounting should address conduct within the probate context, potentially including malpractice. | Probate accounting remains distinct; the issue was not properly pled as malpractice in the accounting. |
| Did belated intervention by Thurber create equitable grounds to avoid the entire controversy doctrine? | Intervention should not defeat the opponent's opportunity to litigate claims. | Intervention near trial date warrants equitable relief and does not bar the malpractice claim. | Yes; equitable reasons support not applying the doctrine. |
| Did the asserted probate-action pleadings encompass a legal malpractice claim against Thurber? | Pleadings actually addressed malpractice aspects of the executor's counsel. | Pleadings did not plead a malpractice claim; expert reports were misdirected. | The claims prepared for probate did not encompass a malpractice claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Tuzzio, 288 N.J. Super. 223 (App. Div. 1996) (probate accounting proceedings address the conduct of the executor, not others)
- Higgins v. Thurber, 413 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2010) (Appellate Division treated malpractice claim as not precluded by entire controversy doctrine)