Brief Fact Summary. An attorney drafted a will for the deceased. A distribution in the form of residue from a trust was supposed to be left to certain family members. Due to a drafting error by the attorney the provision creating the trust was unenforceable.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. "Since … the main purpose of the testator in making his agreement with the attorney [to draft a will] is to benefit the persons named in his will and this intent can be effectuated, in the event of a breach by the attorney, only by giving the beneficiaries a right of action, we should recognize, as a matter of policy, that they are entitled to recover as third-party beneficiaries."
Issue. Under a third party beneficiary theory, do the beneficiaries of a will have a valid suit against the attorney drafter of the will?
Held. Yes, the court concludes that "intended beneficiaries of a will who lose their testamentary rights because of failure of the attorney who drew the will to properly fulfill his obligations under his contract with the testator may recover as third-party beneficiaries."
• The court first voices its opposition to [Buckley v. Gray, 110 Cal. 339, 42 P. 900, 31 L.R.A. 862], which held (i) that because of a lack of privity between a beneficiary and the drafter of the will there could be no recovery and (ii) there also is no recovery for a beneficiary based on a third party beneficiary theory. The court observed "[o]bviously the main purpose of a contract for the drafting of a will is to accomplish the future transfer of the estate of the testator to the beneficiaries named in the will, and therefore it seems improper to hold, as was done in Buckley, that the testator intended only "remotely" to benefit those persons." Performance in third party beneficiary contracts does not necessarily have to be directly to the beneficiary. Additionally, only individuals who are "incidentally or remotely" benefited by the contract are excluded. Further, the court concludes that a "specific manifestation by the promisor of an intent to benefit the third person" is not necessary.
• The court somewhat qualifies its decision. It observes that attorneys are not liable for every mistake they make. Specifically, "he is not, in the absence of an express agreement, an insurer of the soundness of his opinions or of the validity of an instrument that he is engaged to draft; and he is not liable for being in error as to a question of law on which reasonable doubt may be entertained by well-informed lawyers." Thus, the court concludes "[i]n view of the fact that few, if any, areas of the law have been fraught with more confusion or concealed more traps for the unwary draftsman than the rules relating to perpetuities and restraints on alienation, it would not be proper, where it is alleged that defendant drafted a will in such manner that a trust was invalid because it violated the rules relating to perpetuities and restraints on alienation, to hold that defendant failed to use such skill, prudence and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly exercise."
As in Biakanja, one of the main purposes which the transaction between defendant and the testator intended to accomplish was to provide for the transfer of property to plaintiffs; the damage to plaintiffs in the event of invalidity of the bequest was clearly foreseeable; it became certain, upon the death of the testator without change of the will, that plaintiffs would have received the intended benefits but for the asserted negligence of defendant; and if persons such as plaintiffs are not permitted to recover for the loss resulting from negligence of the draftsman, no one would be able to do so and the policy of preventing future harm would be impaired.View Full Point of Law