Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger: The Lack of Privity Defense Survives, but Just Barely
University of Akron - School of Law
July 1, 2008
Probate Law Journal of Ohio, Vol. 18, p. 214, 2008
In Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger, decided in May of this year, the Ohio Supreme Court held that: “A beneficiary of a decedent's will may not maintain a negligence action against an attorney for the preparation of a deed that results in increased tax liability for the estate.” In doing so, the Court approved and followed its 1987 decision in Simon v. Zipperstein. Under Zipperstein, an attorney who prepares a will for a client can not be liable in negligence to a third person the client intended to benefit under the will unless (i) the third person was in privity with the client or (ii) there are special circumstances present, such as fraud, bad faith, collusion or other malicious conduct.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 6
Keywords: lack of privity defense, Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger, beneficiary, will, deed, tax liability, estate, estate planning
JEL Classification: K1
Date posted: April 28, 2010
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.156 seconds