When Gilbert Paul had his revocable living trust amended by attorney Richard Patton, he intended for his children and not his wife to be granted an interest in his brokerage accounts, and real and personal property. However, the trust erroneously left equal shares to Paul’s children and wife. His children settled with Paul’s wife and then sued the drafting attorney for professional negligence. The trial court refused to allow the children to amend their complaint to add the missing allegation that Patton owed them a duty, because the court reasoned they could not be owed a duty as trust beneficiaries.
In Paul v. Patton a California court of appeals reversed and found that an attorney does owe a duty to beneficiaries when the testator clearly intended them to benefit. The children now have the chance to amend their complaint.
See Attorney Can Owe Duty of Care to Trust Beneficiary, Elder Law Answers, Apr. 13, 2015.
