Schreiner v. Scoville

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that an attorney owes a duty of care only to the “direct, intended, and specifically identifiable beneficiaries of the testator as expressed in the testator’s testamentary instruments”
• indicating that disappointed beneficiaries may seek to introduce extrinsic evidence to change the intent of a testator as evidenced by the testamentary document in contravention of the prohibition against use of extrinsic evidence under their statute of wills
• indicating liability arises when testator’s intent is frustrated and beneficiary’s interest is lost, diminished, or unrealized
• indicating liability arises when testator’s intent is frustrated and beneficiary’s interest is lost, diminished, or unrealized
• an action may be maintained by “direct, intended, and specifically identifiable beneficiaries of the testator”
• attorney owes a duty of care to intended third-party beneficiary

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).