Soignier v. Fletcher
256 P.3d 730
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Cowan established the Cowan Trust; it would terminate at age fifty with distributions per trust terms.
- Cowan terminated his interest in the Cowan Trust on March 4, 2005 and later asked Fletcher to prepare his will.
- The will purported to devise all remaining trust interests to Soignier and to American Cancer Society for other property.
- Soignier claimed Fletcher failed to ensure Cowan’s trust interests would pass to her; district court granted summary judgment for Fletcher.
- This Court vacated the attorney-fee award under I.C. § 12-120(3); the underlying malpractice ruling remained.
- Supreme Court clarified that attorney duties to testators’ beneficiaries are limited to effectuating the testator’s express intent in the will.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Fletcher breach a duty to Soignier? | Soignier argues Fletcher failed to reflect Cowan’s trust intentions. | Fletcher contends the will effectuated Cowan’s expressed intent. | No breach; will unambiguously left trust interests to Soignier. |
| Whether Fletcher may recover attorney fees under § 12-120(3) for the malpractice action | Soignier contends no commercial transaction exists between her and Fletcher. | Fletcher asserts some fee entitlement due to related commercial transaction. | Fees under § 12-120(3) are not available; no commercial transaction between Soignier and Fletcher. |
| Whether fees on appeal should be awarded under § 12-120(3) | Soignier seeks fees on appeal for the malpractice action. | Fletcher seeks appellate fees for the same basis. | No appellate fees under § 12-120(3). |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrigfeld v. Hancock, 140 Idaho 134 (2004) (extends duty to nonclients named as beneficiaries)
- Becker v. Callahan, 140 Idaho 522 (2004) (testator’s intent governs dispositive effect; no post hoc duty to monitor assets)
- City of McCall v. Buxton, 146 Idaho 656 (2009) (overruled prior fee-isolation for malpractice; § 12-120(3) requires a commercial transaction)
- Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC, 143 Idaho 723 (2007) (overruled earlier strict bar on § 12-120(3) fees in tort actions)
- Rice v. Litster, 132 Idaho 897 (1999) (previously denied fees in malpractice; discusses contract-based fees)