Facts
- Beverly B. Wilson was a testamentary beneficiary of her uncle, Dr. Thomas A. Hurney.
- Joseph Patrick Clancy, a longtime family friend and attorney, had prepared wills for Dr. and Mrs. Hurney in 1968.
- In 1987, Dr. Hurney asked Clancy to prepare a new will that created trusts intended to care for Mrs. Hurney and for Dr. Hurney’s sister; after both died, the remaining residue was to be divided equally between Wilson and another relative of Dr. Hurney.
- At the time of the 1987 will, Dr. and Mrs. Hurney held most valuable assets in joint tenancy with right of survivorship.
- Dr. Hurney died before Mrs. Hurney and, because of survivorship title, died owning essentially no property in his own name; most assets passed directly to Mrs. Hurney outside probate.
- Mrs. Hurney’s dispositive plan remained governed by her prior will, so Wilson received far less than half of the couple’s combined wealth.
- Wilson alleged that Dr. Hurney intended her to inherit half of his total wealth and that Clancy’s negligent estate planning defeated that intent by failing to ensure that jointly held assets would be available to fund the 1987 will’s trusts.
- Clancy acknowledged that the 1987 plan required changing ownership of jointly held assets, but testified that he advised Dr. Hurney that the assets would need to be retitled or otherwise restructured; Clancy contended Dr. Hurney did not take those steps.
- To oppose summary judgment, Wilson relied heavily on an affidavit from Ms. Bouman, Dr. Hurney’s bookkeeper, who said Dr. Hurney never told her he needed to change title to make the new plan work; Wilson argued the court could infer Clancy never gave the advice he claimed.
- The case came before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on Clancy’s motion for summary judgment in a diversity malpractice action.
Issues
- Whether Wilson produced sufficient admissible evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact that Clancy failed to advise Dr. Hurney about the effect of joint tenancy and the need to retitle assets to carry out the 1987 plan.
- Whether a nonmovant can defeat summary judgment in a legal-malpractice case primarily by asking the factfinder to disbelieve the movant’s testimony, without affirmative evidence contradicting it.
- Whether a witness’s testimony that the decedent did not mention retitling to the witness supports a reasonable inference that the attorney never gave the advice, when the witness was not present for attorney-client communications.
Decision
- The court granted summary judgment for Clancy.
- The court held Wilson failed to present evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find Clancy breached the applicable standard of care.
- The court treated Clancy’s showing as unrebutted on the key point that he advised Dr. Hurney that the jointly held assets would have to be moved out of joint tenancy (or otherwise rearranged) for the 1987 will’s trusts and residue scheme to operate as intended.
- The court rejected Wilson’s reliance on Bouman’s affidavit, concluding that an inference drawn from Bouman’s lack of knowledge or Dr. Hurney’s silence to her was too speculative to create a triable fact dispute.
- The court ruled that generalized attacks on Clancy’s credibility, without concrete contradictory proof, could not defeat summary judgment.
- Judgment was entered for Clancy; the Fourth Circuit later affirmed without a published opinion.
Legal Principles
- A party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence that would be admissible at trial and sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to rule in that party’s favor; conjecture is not enough.
- A nonmovant cannot avoid summary judgment merely by asserting that the jury might disbelieve the movant’s evidence; the record must contain affirmative proof supporting the nonmovant’s version of events.
- In estate-planning malpractice, drafting a will does not by itself guarantee that nonprobate assets (such as jointly titled property with survivorship rights) will pass under the will; the lawyer’s duty is to give correct advice about how title affects transfer at death.
- When the lawyer gives correct advice about the need to retitle or restructure assets and the client does not act on that advice, the client’s inaction can defeat proof of breach and causation in a beneficiary’s malpractice claim.
- Evidence that a third party was never told about a legal requirement, when the third party was not part of attorney-client discussions, generally has weak probative value on whether the attorney gave the advice.
Conclusion
Wilson’s reduced inheritance resulted from how Dr. and Mrs. Hurney titled their assets and the survivorship transfer at Dr. Hurney’s death, not from a defect in the 1987 will itself; because Wilson offered only speculative inferences from a bookkeeper’s testimony and a credibility attack—rather than admissible evidence contradicting Clancy’s account that he advised Dr. Hurney to change title—the court found no genuine dispute of material fact and entered summary judgment for Clancy.