Stephenson v. Spiegle
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
58 A.3d 1228 (2013)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Jack Murray executed a will naming certain family members as beneficiaries. Attorney William Spiegle (defendant) assisted in drafting the will. Less than two months later, Murray opened a bank account and named Spiegle as the beneficiary in the event of Murray’s death. Spiegle was unaware of the opening of this account. Murray and Spiegle did not have a personal relationship outside of their attorney-client relationship. When Murray died, the account had a value of about one third of Murray’s estate. Dan Stephenson (plaintiff) was the executor of Murray’s estate. When Spiegle staked a claim to the funds in the bank account, Stephenson sued Spiegle. The trial court found that the only conceivable explanation of Murray’s designation of Spiegle as the account’s beneficiary was that he wished to put it in Spiegle’s hands so he could add it to Murray’s will. In effect, the court held that Murray made a mistake. Consequently, the court rescinded Murray’s appointment of Spiegle as the account’s beneficiary, and ordered the funds to be given to Murray’s estate. Spiegle appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fisher, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.
