Leroy Barcelo III, Terri Jo Barcelo, Cecil Wayne Barcelo, Jr., Christopher Lee Barcelo, and Frances Michelle Barcelo Schock v. David J. Elliot and Eikenburg & Stiles, P.C.

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals considered whether intended beneficiaries of an invalid trust could sue the drafting attorney for negligence or breach of contract despite lacking privity with the attorney-client relationship. Applying then-existing Texas law, the court held that only the client could sue the attorney for negligent preparation of estate-planning documents and that the beneficiaries could not recover under a third-party-beneficiary theory. The court affirmed summary judgment for the attorney and law firm.

Holdings

1. Under existing Texas law, an attorney is subject to suit for negligent preparation of estate-planning documents only by the attorney's client; intended beneficiaries who lack privity with the attorney-client relationship may not recover from the attorney.
2. The plaintiffs could not proceed under a contractual third-party-beneficiary theory because existing Texas law also precluded recovery on that theory by persons lacking privity with the attorney.
3. Summary judgment was proper because the undisputed evidence established that plaintiffs were not clients of the attorney or law firm and plaintiffs failed to raise a fact issue or state a valid cause of action under existing Texas law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether intended beneficiaries of an invalid estate-planning trust may sue the drafting attorney for negligence when they were not the attorney's clients and lacked privity with the attorney-client relationship.
2. Whether the intended beneficiaries could avoid the privity rule by asserting a contractual third-party-beneficiary theory.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper because the plaintiffs had no valid cause of action under existing Texas law.

Disposition

affirmed