Tensfeldt v. Haberman
Wisconsin Supreme Court
768 N.W.2d 641 (2009)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Robert Tensfeldt and his first wife divorced and entered into an agreement stipulating that Tensfeldt would leave two-thirds of his net estate to their three children (Tensfeldt’s children) (plaintiffs). Tensfeldt remarried. Tensfeldt and his second wife had no children, but his second wife had three children from a previous marriage. Tensfeldt executed a will that complied with the agreement. Two years later, Tensfeldt retained attorney Roy LaBudde (defendant). Tensfeldt told LaBudde about his obligation to his children but over the next 12 years chose to execute noncompliant estate plans. Tensfeldt later consulted with attorney F. William Haberman (defendant) and decided not to change his estate plan. Tensfeldt died. After settling a dispute with Tensfeldt’s second wife, Tensfeldt’s children sued LaBudde and Haberman, alleging in part that LaBudde aided and abetted Tensfeldt in violating the court order requiring Tensfeldt to make and maintain a specific estate plan. The court held that the five wills LaBudde drafted for Tensfeldt, none of which complied with Tensfeldt’s divorce judgment, constituted aiding and abetting as a matter of law and granted summary judgment to Tensfeldt’s children. LaBudde appealed, arguing that qualified immunity or the good-faith advice privilege barred the aiding-and-abetting claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bradley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
