Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

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

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

6 Pages Posted: 28 Apr 2010  

Alan Newman

University of Akron - School of Law

Date Written: July 1, 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.

Keywords: lack of privity defense, Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger, beneficiary, will, deed, tax liability, estate, estate planning

JEL Classification: K1

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: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1597422

Alan Newman (Contact Author)

University of Akron - School of Law ( email )

150 University Ave.
Akron, OH 44325-2901
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
14
Abstract Views
633