Julia Boxley, et al. v. Doe Attorney
Published: Dec. 14, 1996 | Result Date: Sep. 23, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 733421 – $0
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Michael J. Grobaty
(Grobaty & Pitet LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Paul G. MacMillin
(technical)
Theodore I. Wallace Jr.
(technical)
Randolph Godshall
(technical)
Defendant
Harry E. Westover
(technical)
John R. Mawhinney
(technical)
Facts
In December 1986, the defendant attorney drafted a will for her long-time client. During the will drafting process, the client informed the defendant attorney that he owned a leasehold interest in geothermal rights. His leasehold interest paid him substantial royalties. The client informed the defendant attorney that the royalties derived from this lease were to be divided equally amongst his 28 living nieces and nephews. The attorney drafted a will which set up a testamentary trust to effect this bequest. When the client died in 1992, it was discovered that the decedent actually had three geothermal leasehold interests encumbering Imperial County properties that the decedent owned, which had been bequested to two of his nephews. Consequently, there was confusion over whether the decedent intended for the two nephews to receive the geothermal royalties derived from the properties that were specifically bequested, or whether all 28 nieces and nephews were to share evenly in the royalties from all three leases. A petition in probate was filed to interpret the provision of the will relating to the distribution of geothermal royalties. In the probate litigation, the nieces and nephews stipulated that the two nephews who received the specific property bequests would receive 30 percent of all geothermal royalties, and the remaining 26 nieces and nephews would evenly divide the remaining 70 percent of the geothermal royalties. Nine of the 26 nieces and nephews thereafter sued the defendant attorney for negligently drafting the will in a manner which allegedly led to the ambiguity concerning the distribution of geothermal royalties.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $1 million, reduced to $500,000 at mediation and $400,000 during jury deliberations. The defendant made a settlement offer of $175,000 with indications of $250,000.
Damages
The plaintiffs alleged a $625,000 loss in future geothermal royalties, a $67,000 loss in past geothermal royalties, a $67,000 loss in estate tax interest which they claim resulted in delays caused by the will ambiguities, approximately $12,000 in loss of earnings to one of the plaintiffs, and $100,000 in attorney's fees in connection with the probate litigation.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and two months after the case was filed. MEDIATION: A mediation was held on Sept. 6, 1996 before Judge John Flynn, retired, of JAMS/Endispute. It did not resolve the matter. EXPERT TESTIMONY: The plaintiffs' liability experts testified that the probate litigation resulting from the alleged ambiguities in the will caused the plaintiffs to incur unnecessary estate tax interest due to the estate's inability to sell the Imperial County properties in order to timely pay estate taxes. This enabled the defendant to successfully assert a statute of limitations defense, since the plaintiffs were aware of this alleged damage for more than a year before filing the complaint.
Deliberation
3 hours
Poll
12-0 (for the defendant on liability and statute of limitations), Nonsuit (negligent infliction of emotional distress)
Length
8 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390