Estates May Pursue Legal Malpractice Claims on Behalf of Decedents
The Court of Appeals has rendered a landmark decision, chipping away at privity in holding that an estate fiduciary may maintain a legal malpractice claim against its decedent’s estate tax planning attorneys for negligent representation. Until now, privity, i.e., a legal connection between two parties, was a strict condition precedent to maintaining a legal malpractice claim.
In Estate of Schneider, 2010 NY Slip Op 05281, decided June 17, 2010, the estate argued that the decedent should have been provided advice that would have decreased his estate’s tax liability. Specifically, it was asserted that the decedent’s attorneys should have advised him to transfer, or not to transfer, his $1 million life insurance policy to or from an entity of which he was the principal owner in order to reduce his gross taxable estate.
The Supreme Court dismissed the claim for failure to state a cause of action, but the Court of Appeals reversed. In upholding the claim, the high court equated the relationship between an estate and its decedent to one of privity, or one “sufficiently approaching privity” for purposes of pursuing a legal malpractice action. It aligned its reasoning with that of the Texas Supreme Court, and opined that “‘the estate essentially stands in the shoes of the decedent’ and therefore ‘has the capacity to maintain the malpractice claim on the estate’s behalf’”.
In determining the foregoing, the Court stated that its holding complies with EPTL 11-3.2(b), which permits the fiduciary of an estate to “maintain an action for ‘injury to person or property’ after that person’s death”. The Court further noted that its decision had no altering effect on the strict privity rules against beneficiaries bringing legal malpractice claims against a decedent’s estate planning attorneys.
It would not be surprising if the natural outgrowth of this decision is an increased number of legal malpractice claims against estate planning attorneys.
Fiduciary Relationship Leads to Allegations of Constructive Fraud
In a recent case, a New York County Surrogate denied a motion for summary judgment, holding that a trial was necessary to determine whether the founder of the Benihana restaurant chain, Rocki Aoki, was the victim of constructive fraud perpetrated by his conflicted lawyers. The issue in Estate of Aoki, 5/17/2010 NYLJ 18 (col 3), was the enforcement of releases to a testamentary power of appointment, which, if valid, would deny Mr. Aoiki’s surviving spouse any interest in the Benihana restaurant empire. The movants were two of Mr. Aoki’s children, Devon and Steven.
Mr. Aoki died in 2008 at age 69, survived by his third wife, Keiko, and six children from various relationships. Not bad for a guy who gained notoriety by flipping shrimp tails into his hat and shirt pockets.
Given his less than traditional family tree, it is hardly surprising that Mr. Aoki’s heirs are now litigants in the Surrogate’s Court.
The power of appointment in issue pertained to the Benihana Protective Trust (“BPT”), to which Mr. Aoki transferred all of his rights in Benihana of Tokyo, Inc., a publicly traded company of which he was the sole owner. The trust instrument named Mr. Aoki and his children as discretionary beneficiaries, and provided him with an unlimited testamentary power of appointment over the corpus. Trust and estates attorney Norman Shaw drafted the agreement. He was retained by, and received instructions from, Darwin C. Dornbush, Mr. Aoki’s personal lawyer for 30 years. Mr. Shaw had never met Mr. Aoki.
Mr. Aoki married Keiko in July 2002, four years after the BPT was created. Not surprisingly, Mr. Aoki’s children were concerned that his new wife might influence him to deprive them of some or all of the inheritance they expected. Two of them -- Kevin and Kana -- discussed their concerns, including the lack of a pre-nuptial agreement, with Dornbush. They then proposed to Keiko that she and the decedent sign a postnuptial agreement, apparently acting on Dornbush’s advice. Mr. Aoki did not participate in the conversation, and Keiko refused the request. Kevin and Kana then approached Dornbush and Shaw about protecting their interests as potential beneficiaries of the BPT.
Following a meeting at Dornbush’s office attended by the decedent, Kana and Kevin, the four met again, on September 24, 2002, for Mr. Aoki to sign a codicil to his will and an unrelated consent to an amendment of the BPT. During that brief meeting, Shaw arrived and presented the decedent with a one-page document entitled “Partial Release of Power of Appointment Under New York Estates, Powers & Trust Law §10-9.2.” By signing that document, the decedent “irrevocably” limited his power of appointment to permit him to appoint only his descendants.
Nobody advised the decedent that the release was irrevocable, nor did anyone advise him of the substantial tax consequences of foregoing the marital deduction.
Continue Reading...