Carlson v. Sweeney, Dabagia, Donoghue, Thorne, Janes & Pagos
Indiana Supreme Court
895 N.E.2d 1191 (2008)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Norman Carlson Sr. and Hilda Carlson (the Carlsons) hired the law firm Sweeney, Dabagia, Donoghue, Thorne, Janes & Pagos (the firm) (defendant) to prepare their wills. The Carlsons asked the firm to draft the wills in a way that would enable their grandchildren to avoid estate-tax liability. After the Carlsons died, their son, his wife, and their two children (beneficiaries) (plaintiffs) hired an attorney who advised that the Carlsons’ property was subject to estate tax because the will contained no ascertainable standards for the distribution of the trust’s principal. At the beneficiaries’ request, the firm filed a petition to reform Norman Sr.’s will. The court granted the petition and reformed the will to enable the beneficiaries to avoid estate tax, consistent with the Carlsons’ intent. Subsequently, the beneficiaries sued the firm for legal malpractice for its work drafting the Carlsons’ wills. The trial court granted the firm summary judgment on the ground that the beneficiaries suffered no harm resulting from the firm’s work because Norman Sr.’s will had been reformed to align with his intent. The beneficiaries appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rucker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.