841 N.W.2d 338
Iowa2013Background
- Estate of Alvin Engels: Revocable Trust and Charitable Foundation created; Ingram involved as adviser, executor, and cotrustee; Tarbox drafted 2003 Will and Charitable Trust terms; 2004 quitclaim deed attempted transfer of Engels’s home to the Charitable Trust but title remained in the Revocable Trust; Engels’s death in 2006 left Bristol as specific heir to the Geneseo home while charitable gifts were discretionary under the Trust; district court granted summary judgment to Ingram and Baird, appellate court reversed in part and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Ingram owe a duty to the beneficiaries? | Bristol argues Ingram’s agency extended to estate planning duties. | Ingram and Baird contend no duty to beneficiaries existed. | Yes, a duty could arise; genuine issues of material fact remain. |
| Does Schreiner extend to nonattorney agents? | Schreiner duty should apply to Ingram as an agent in estate planning. | Limitations apply; only attorneys owe such duties. | Schreiner extends to nonattorneys acting within agency scope. |
| Is economic loss doctrine applicable to these claims? | Duty from agency allows recovery despite economic loss. | Economic loss doctrine bars such damages absent exception. | Economic loss rule does not bar because duty arises from principal–agent relationship. |
| Are damages too speculative for St. Malachy’s and United Way? | Distributions under the Trust would have favored them; damages are provable. | Damages too speculative; recovery denied for those claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schreiner v. Scoville, 410 N.W.2d 679 (Iowa 1987) (duty to identifiable beneficiaries under testamentary instruments")
- Holsapple v. McGrath, 521 N.W.2d 711 (Iowa 1994) (extension to identifiable beneficiaries of nontestamentary instruments)
- Pitts v. Farmers & Merchants Savings Bank, 818 N.W.2d 95 (Iowa 2012) (duty under agency/principal relationships; beneficiaries’ relief)