Facts

Plaintiff Ryan Trottier was the sole beneficiary of his grandmother's will, which was prepared by defendant Bryce Letterman. Plaintiff's father, Steven Trottier, filed a will contest, seeking to set aside the will based on the undue influence of plaintiff's mother and Steven's ex-wife Lori, which will contest was ultimately settled by plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The decedent intended to and left nothing in her will to her son, Steven Trottier. Plaintiff contended that defendant was negligent and that plaintiff was damaged by the filing of the will contest. Plaintiff contended he received less than the full amount of the decedent's estate because it was necessary to incur the cost of defending against Steven's will contest and ultimately, settling with Steven in order to bring the will contest to an end. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendant should have advised the decedent of the possibility of a will contest and then drafted the will contest to give Steven a large enough bequest that Steven would have been happy to accept without contesting the will.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that he drafted the will in accordance with the express intent of the decedent, which was to disinherit and leave none of her estate to Steven Trottier. Defendant asserted that he owed no duty, as a matter of law, to prevent a will contest or to "litigation proof" the will, i.e. to draft the will in such a way that effectively would have made Steven unwilling to initiate litigation to contest the will. Defendant further asserted that plaintiff's claimed damages as a result of such purported negligence were speculative, and unrecoverable as a matter of law.

Result

The court sustained defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's first amended complaint and sole cause of action for legal malpractice without leave to amend.

Other Information

The court determined that defendant owed no duty, as a matter of law, to plaintiff to prevent a will contest or to "litigation proof" the will, stating that the drafter of a will owes a limited duty to the beneficiary only to implement the intent of the decedent, which defendant admittedly did when he drafted the will to expressly disinherit Steven Trottier. The court further determined that plaintiff's purported damages and causation were wholly speculative and unrecoverable, as the damages could not have been foreseen and prevented as plaintiff could only have been better off if defendant could have known what the amount of the offer to Steven would have been. Also, if defendant could have persuaded the decedent to depart from her express intention to give nothing to Steven and instead, give Steven enough of the estate to make him happy enough with his bequest that he would not contest the will in order to get more, and if defendant was ultimately correct in his guesses about how much would be enough to satisfy Steven. The court concluded, even if a duty could be alleged, which it could not, plaintiff could not allege damages and causation other than by pure speculation.