Wesp v. Everson
Colorado Supreme Court
33 P.3d 191 (2001)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Heather Wesp (plaintiff) sued her mother and stepfather, Cheryl and Frank Brewer (defendants), for damages caused by Frank sexually abusing Wesp as a child. For the related criminal charges, Frank hired attorney Paul Prendergast. Prendergast and Frank typically met alone. However, Prendergast had one joint meeting with both Brewers. Later, the Brewers both committed suicide. In a suicide note, Cheryl said that Prendergast had told them that Wesp’s allegations would be hard to disprove and that Frank should take an offered plea deal on the criminal charges. Wesp’s civil lawsuit continued against the Brewers’ estates (defendants), and Wesp tried to depose Prendergast about his communications with Frank. Prendergast refused to answer, claiming that the communications were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The trial court ruled that the communications were not privileged because (1) Cheryl’s note disclosing some attorney-client communications had waived any privilege, (2) Frank’s death ended the privilege, (3) the testamentary exception might apply, and (4) protecting the communications would cause manifest injustice. The estates sought an immediate review of the ruling to prevent the disclosure of privileged information. On appeal, all parties agreed that the joint-meeting communications were not privileged because Cheryl was present.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bender, 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.
