Jackson State Bank v. King

Maurice Miles (plaintiff) was appointed executor of his wife’s estate. A portion of the estate was left in a trust for the benefit of his wife’s son from a previous marriage and her son’s family (the Hutsons). Miles retained attorney Floyd King (defendant) to represent him in fulfilling his executor duties. After the estate was closed, the Hutsons sued Miles, claiming Miles had breached his fiduciary duties as executor. Miles filed a third-party complaint against King, alleging legal malpractice based on negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Miles and the Hutsons settled. In the legal-malpractice action, the jury found that King had been negligent, breached the duty owed to Miles, and breached his contract with Miles. The jury apportioned 35% of the negligence to Miles, 35% to King, and 30% to Jackson State Bank. The court held that the jury’s comparative-fault assessment applied to Miles’s claims and denied recovery. Miles appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified to the Wyoming Supreme Court the questions (1) whether Wyoming’s comparative-negligence statute barred a recovery in a legal-malpractice action based on claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty if the jury apportioned 35 percent of the fault to the plaintiff, 35 percent to the defendant, and 30 percent to a third party; and, (2) if the comparative-negligence statute did not bar recovery, whether the statute or some other principle of Wyoming law required that the plaintiff’s recovery be reduced by Miles’s percentage of fault.