Procedural Posture

Plaintiffs, beneficiaries under a will, appealed a judgment of dismissal from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) in an action against attorney for damages for alleged negligence in preparation of a will.

Overview

Plaintiffs, beneficiaries under a will, brought this action against defendant attorney. Defendant prepared a will by which plaintiffs were designated as beneficiaries of a trust provided for in the will. Defendant prepared testamentary instruments containing phraseology that was invalid by virtue of Cal. Civ. Code § 715.2 and former §§ 715.1 and 716 relating to restraints on alienation and the rule against perpetuities. As a result, plaintiffs received a smaller share of the estate. The court held the lack of privity between plaintiffs and defendant did not preclude an action in tort against defendant. Intended beneficiaries of a will who lost their testamentary rights because of attorney’s failure to properly prepare a will could recover as third-party beneficiaries. However, defendant was not liable for the mistake in this case because he was in error as to a question of law on which well-informed lawyers could entertain reasonable doubt. The parties were represented by California business and employment attorney.

Outcome

Court affirmed judgment of dismissal where lack of privity between plaintiffs and defendant did not preclude action against defendant, but defendant was not liable for being in error as to a question of law on which well-informed lawyers could entertain reasonable doubt.

Procedural Posture

Governmental plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against defendant lead manufacturers. The Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, sustained the manufacturers’ demurrers to plaintiffs’ public nuisance causes of action, denied plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint adding a cause of action for continuing trespass, and granted the manufacturers’ motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiffs appealed.

Overview

The instant court concluded that the trial court’s rulings were erroneous as to plaintiffs’ public nuisance, strict liability, negligence, and fraud causes of action. The manufacturers’ summary judgment motion on the negligence and strict liability causes of action was based solely on the statute of limitations. The manufacturers did not assert that plaintiffs had failed to state a cause of action due to the absence of allegations of physical injury to their buildings. Plaintiffs were given no opportunity to respond to the manufacturers’ motion on this unstated ground. The trial court also erred in sustaining the manufacturers’ demurrer to the representative public nuisance cause of action without leave to amend because plaintiffs alleged that removal of lead from their buildings was necessary to prevent future harm to the public. However, the trial court properly denied plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add a continuing trespass cause of action because the proposed allegations did not state a trespass cause of action. The trial court also properly granted summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ cause of action under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

Outcome

The judgment was reversed. The trial court was directed to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer to the representative public nuisance cause of action and enter a new order overruling the demurrer to that cause of action and vacate its order granting summary judgment and enter a new order granting summary adjudication on the UCL cause of action but denying summary adjudication on the negligence, strict liability, and fraud causes of action.