Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1597422
 
 

Footnotes (27)



 


 



Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger: The Lack of Privity Defense Survives, but Just Barely


Alan Newman


University of Akron - School of Law

July 1, 2008

Probate Law Journal of Ohio, Vol. 18, p. 214, 2008

Abstract:     
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

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: April 28, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Newman, Alan, Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger: The Lack of Privity Defense Survives, but Just Barely (July 1, 2008). Probate Law Journal of Ohio, Vol. 18, p. 214, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1597422

Contact Information

Alan Newman (Contact Author)
University of Akron - School of Law ( email )
150 University Ave.
Akron, OH 44325-2901
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 442
Downloads: 9
Footnotes:  27

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.297 seconds