*1 EISMANN, and Justices Chief Justice
BURDICK, W. JONES HORTON
concur.
Mary Killins
Plaintiff-Appellant, FLETCHER,
W. Defendant- Kent
Respondent.
No. 37123. Idaho,
Supreme Court of
Boise, April 2011 Term.
June 2011.
Rehearing July Denied claims, judgment 5. The district court's contained a Rule IPPEA and IHRA both of which were 54(b) stating judgment upon summary certificate judgment. dismissed It 54(b) regard final with superfluous, issues dealt with therein. the Rule certificate was as all 54(b) why It is unclear a Rule certification issues were resolved and the required complaint only fully disposed appeal. because the raised the case has been of on *2 Ellis, Shields, Chtd., Boise, & Brown and Office, Boise, Appellant. Strother Law for Jeffrey argued. Strother Troxell, LLP, Hawley, Hawley, & Ennis Boise, Respondent. for Michelle Points ar- gued. OPINION. COURT’S
SUBSTITUTE THE OPINION PRIOR DATED JUNE HEREBY 2011 IS WITHDRAWN JONES, Justice. W.
I. Nature of the Case Soignier appeals K. the district grant summary judgment court’s decision Fletcher, attorney, Kent on her W. legal malpractice. She asserts Fletcher that a ensure prepared conveyed pro- will he to her the of a trust of which ceeds the decedent was beneficiary shortly until the dece- before adequately death. Since ef- dent’s Fletcher expressed fectuated the testator’s intent as itself, the will was cor- district court grant summary judgment rect to on the However, va- claim. this Court grant cates the district court’s 12-120(3), malprac- claim in this ease not stem from a tice does commercial transaction. Background
II. Factual and Procedural represented Kent W. decedent, Cowan, Zachary A. for several years until Cowan’s death in October of 2006. lifetime, During his was the beneficia- Cowan provided that his ry of a trust mother him, known as the Leonarda A. Cowan Trust Trust”). (the “Cowan The terms of the Co- provided wan Trust the trust would age fifty, at persist until Cowan reached most of which time was terminate and to be assets were distributed to Cowan. its birthday fiftieth was in and Cowan’s signed March a Final Release agreement terminated Discharge in which he did not have interest the trust. Cowan his trusts. any beneficial interests in other Shortly terminating party after his interest 3.Whether either is entitled to attor- Trust, ney the Cowan instructed fees on under 12- 120(3). prepare his Last andWill Testament. *3 provided The will that all of remain- Cowan’s ing beneficial interests in trusts be de- IV.Standard of Review Soignier, Appellant. vised to Killins It applies This Court the same stan also referred to written list of items and ruling dard as the court when district on a recipients intended that was never located. summary judgment. motion for WescoAuto Society The American Cancer was named as Ernest, body 881, Supply, Inc. v. 149 Idaho the residual all of devisee for Cowan’s other 890, (2010). 243 P.3d Summary property. judgment proper if pleadings, deposi “the filed a claim Cowan’s es- tions, file, together and admissions on with Trust, proceeds tate for the from the Cowan affidavits, any, the if that show there is no rejected.
which magistrate magis- the The genuine issue as to material fact and that that, trate found because the trust had termi- moving party the judgment is entitled to a nated, unambiguously conveyed any the will 56(c). a matter of law.” I.R.C.P. The mov assets that remained in Cowan’s estate to the showing ant has the genu burden that no Society. American Cancer ine issues of material fact exist. Stoddart v. Pocatello Sch. Dist. No. 149 Idaho Believing that Cowan intended to leave the (2010). Disputed facts her, Soignier trust assets to asserted this and reasonable inferences are construed in claim legal malpractice against for Fletcher favor of nonmoving party. the Castorena v. granted 2009. The district summary Elec., 609, 613, 149 Idaho Gen. Fletcher, ruling that there was freely Court This reviews issues genuine no issue fact as to whether the of law. Cnty., Lattin Adams will frustrated Cowan’s intent. The court 497, 500, granted request Fletcher’s for fees under I.C. V.Analysis
Soignier appealed Court, to this contend- ing that Fletcher carry Correctly A. The District Court Granted out inaccurately Cowan’s wishes describ- Summary Judgment to Fletcher Be- ing his trust assets. She further contends Duty cause He Did Not Breach a that it improper to award fees under I.C. because engaged she was never There legal- are four elements to a in a commercial transaction with Fletcher. (1) malpractice claim: attorney- there is an responds that the will was not defi- client relationship plaintiff between the and giving cient in effect to Cowan’s intent (2) defendant; lawyer the defendant owed a leave remaining Soigni- trust interests to (3) plaintiff; care to the lawyer the and, additionally, er that the fee award was duty; breached the lawyer’s neg the correct because claim arises di- ligence proximate awas cause of the client’s rectly from a transaction for services Jones, damage. Johnson v. between Fletcher and Cowan. (1982). Here, the dispute do not the first two Appeal III.Issues case, present elements are in this as Idaho 1. Whether correctly district court recognizes exception to the traditional granted summary judgment to requirement plaintiff that the have been in on Soignier’s for privity with lawyer the defendant in order to by finding that no breach had occurred. expect lawyer profes owe or her a 2. Whether Fletcher was entitled to attor- sional of care. v. Han
ney
cock,
below under I.C.
beneficial
interests
trusts
plaintiffs
including
for not
in the decedent’s
any
if
will
so exist. The
does not mention
plaintiffs
will certain real-estate assets the
Trust, likely
a
the Cowan
because it is
resid-
receive).
thought they
Attorneys
would
do
uary
any
bequeath
clause not intended to
postulate
not have to
whether a
in
testator
Rather,
specific
simply
assets.
devises
something
tended to do
than what
other
already
trust assets to
that have not
expressed in the will.
disposed
testamentary
been
of in
other
Kirk,
Second, Soignier
Matter
that Cowan
instrument. See
Estate
assumes
of
of
of the
Idaho
did not understand the nature
assets
residuary
(interpreting
light
leaving
Soignier. Again, Harrig
a
clause in
of he was
strong presumption against
intestacy).
that “a testator who has sufficient
stated
feld
capacity
mental
to make a valid will can
This clause effectuated the testator’s ex-
pressed
property
will
intent to make
the residual
understand how his
her
be
testamentary
under the
devisee of
beneficial trust
interests Co-
distributed
docu-
attorney
fees We attorney award
fore decline to fees 12-120(3). Conclusion YI. P.3d 735 correctly granted sum- The district Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, STATE mary judgment to Fletcher on attorney malpractice, but errone- ously attorney fees under I.C. awarded FOLK, Jonathan Defendant- Earl is affirmed in Appellant. part part. We vacate the and reversed below. award No fees or No. 36244. appeal. costs are awarded on *6 Idaho. Supreme Court of Boise, 2011 Term. June BURDICK, J. Justices JONES and concur. HORTON June EISMANN, specially Chief Justice
concurring. majority opinion,
I concur in the but write additional comment. add an expand
If v. Han- we were
cock,
requested by Soignier, Ms. what amount of entitled
money would she be to receive? question
That she could was a not answer argument.
during oral already received a had distribution prior making will.
from the trust his final obviously longer money received no trust,
subject attempt and he to the made no money Ms. bequest Soignier. Had to, certainly could done so
he wanted have bequest by making specific to her or
either portion of the of the
granting her a residue beneficial interests “[a]ll
estate other than trusts.” He neither. I have did give
Assuming that he wanted her a be- certainly money
quest, he had it was So, what it? How
already received. money
much he want her to receive? did
Any intended for Ms. contention that Cowan