Richard Audette v. Donald Poulin
127 A.3d 908
R.I.2015Background
- Richard Audette was a beneficiary of a charitable remainder trust that allowed him to live rent-free in a trust property; trustee Donald Poulin objected when Audette permitted his elderly parents to move in.
- Poulin consulted and retained attorney David J. Correira, who advised Poulin that the trust did not permit Audette’s parents to live there; Poulin then sought to evict Audette (action later dismissed by agreement).
- Audette sued Poulin, successor trustee Jerry Ims, the trust, and later amended to add Correira, asserting negligence and breach of fiduciary duty based on Correira’s advice and tax/administrative handling of the trust.
- Correira moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing no duty of care was owed to Audette (a non-client) and that claims were time-barred.
- The Superior Court granted dismissal, holding that an attorney representing a trustee does not owe a duty of care to adverse beneficiaries in these circumstances; Audette appealed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding no duty existed here (and therefore Audette’s malpractice-based claims failed), so it did not reach the statute-of-limitations issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an attorney for a trustee owes a duty of care to trust beneficiaries | Audette argued Correira owed beneficiaries a duty as third-party or intended beneficiaries, or at least when trustee and beneficiary share identical interests ("identity of interest") | Correira argued no attorney-client relationship or fraud existed, and generally attorneys owe no duty to adversaries or non-clients; claims also time-barred | Court held no duty existed here; beneficiary was not a client or intended beneficiary and relationship was adversarial, so malpractice claim fails |
| Whether the third-party-beneficiary exception to no-duty rule applies to trustee's attorney | Audette urged extension of the exception or an "identity of interest" rule to impose duty | Correira contended exception is narrow and inapplicable absent clear intent to benefit third party | Court declined to extend exception; found no identity of interest given antagonistic trustee-beneficiary relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Square Capital Corp. v. Mittleman, 773 A.2d 882 (R.I. 2001) (legal malpractice is a form of negligence)
- Macera Brothers of Cranston, Inc. v. Gelfuso & Lachut, Inc., 740 A.2d 1262 (R.I. 1999) (elements of malpractice: duty, breach, damages)
- Ahmed v. Pannone, 779 A.2d 630 (R.I. 2001) (plaintiff must prove duty, breach, and proximate damages in legal malpractice)
- Credit Union Central Falls v. Groff, 966 A.2d 1262 (R.I. 2009) (third-party beneficiary exception may impose duty in narrow circumstances)
- Church v. McBurney, 513 A.2d 22 (R.I. 1986) (malpractice claims generally require employment relationship between attorney and claimant)