Opinion ID: 1301652
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Negligence Claim Against Attorney Haberman

Text: ¶ 75 We turn now to the claim against Attorney Haberman. The circuit court dismissed the children's claim that Haberman was negligent for failing to advise Robert about the likely consequences of Bravo v. Sauter, 727 So.2d 1103 (Fla.Ct. App.1999). There is no dispute that Haberman's failure to inform Robert about Bravo was negligent. The dispute here is whether that negligence gives rise to liability and damages. ¶ 76 The children contend that they were damaged in two ways by Haberman's negligent advice to their father. They argue that they received a smaller share of the estate and had to await Constance's death to recover their inheritance. Additionally, they argue that they had to undertake expensive probate litigation in Florida, reducing the value of their inheritance still further. They assert that if Haberman had properly advised Robert, he would have made a definitive decision about whether to allow Constance to continue to receive income from the trust even if she elected against the estate. Therefore, they claim, the probate litigation would have been unnecessary. ¶ 77 As discussed above, an attorney generally is not liable to third parties for negligence in the performance of his duties to a client, even if the negligent advice causes the third party harm. [27] See Yorgan, 290 Wis.2d 671, ¶ 27, 715 N.W.2d 160. Estate planning is one exception. Under Auric, 111 Wis.2d at 509, 331 N.W.2d 325, the beneficiary of a will may maintain a lawsuit against an attorney who negligently drafted or supervised the execution of the will even though the beneficiary is not in privity with that attorney. Here, Attorney Haberman neither drafted nor supervised the execution of Robert's estate plan. His only role was giving Robert admittedly negligent advice. Extending the Auric exception to attorneys who give negligent advice stretches the exception too far. ¶ 78 Additionally, we note that the circuit court determined that the children's claim that they had been harmed as a result of Haberman's negligence was speculative. The court's review of the evidence revealed no proof that Robert would have altered his estate plan had he realized the likely impact of Bravo. ¶ 79 The Tensfeldt children argue that they presented some evidence that Robert would have changed his mind had he known about the likely impact of Bravo, and that this evidence is sufficient to pass summary judgment. Specifically, they point to Robert's 1999 approval of an estate plan that did not take into account Connie's right to elect against the estate. The children contend that this distribution scheme represents Robert's testamentary intent and is evidence that, had he understood that Constance could elect against the estate, he would have increased the distribution to his children. In addition, the children point to statements made by Haberman in Florida probate court when he argued on behalf of the estate against Constance's decision to elect against the will. ¶ 80 The circuit court correctly determined that the children's evidence of injury was speculative, and was therefore insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. See AccuWeb, 308 Wis.2d 258, ¶ 21, 746 N.W.2d 447. Robert's 1999 approval of the distribution scheme is evidence of what his desires would have been had Bravo not been a factor. Looking at this evidence, however, there is simply no way to make even an educated guess about what Robert would have done had he understood that this distribution plan would not be carried out due to Bravo. A reasonable jury, looking at this evidence, would have no basis to determine by a preponderance of the evidence that Robert would have altered his estate plan had he understood Constance's rights under Florida law. ¶ 81 Further, the circuit court correctly determined that Haberman's arguments in probate court are not evidence of what Robert would have done had he been advised about Bravo. Because Haberman did not inform Robert of Bravo, Haberman never learned whether and how Robert would have altered his estate plan. None of Haberman's statements to the court reflects any personal knowledge about what Robert would have done had he been properly advised. ¶ 82 Under these circumstances, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment. Haberman is not liable to third parties for his negligent advice, and further, the children failed to present sufficient evidence that they were harmed by Haberman's negligent advice to create a genuine issue of material fact.