Fabian v. Lindsay

765 S.E.2d 132 (2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The facts, in the light most favorable to P, are as follows. On May 25, 1990, P's uncle, Dr. Denis Fabian, executed a trust agreement that was drafted by D. Dr. Fabian was then around 80 years old and his wife, Marilyn Fabian, whom he had married in 1973, was about twenty years younger. Dr. Fabian made his wife the life beneficiary of the trust. Dr. Fabian died on February 5, 2000, and his brother Eli died a few weeks later. Eli survived Dr. Fabian, but not Mrs. Fabian, who held the life interest in the trust. At Dr. Fabian's death, the trust was valued at approximately $13 million. Dr. Fabian died on February 5, 2000, and his brother Eli died a few weeks later. Eli survived Dr. Fabian, but not Mrs. Fabian, who held the life interest in the trust. At Dr. Fabian's death, the trust was valued at approximately $13 million. After Dr. Fabian's death, D mailed a letter and two pages from the trust agreement to P and informed her that she would not be receiving anything from Dr. Fabian's trust upon Mrs. Fabian's future death because the share that would have been distributed to her would, instead, be distributed to Eli's estate. P was the daughter of Dr. Fabian's predeceased brother, Zoltan Fabian. After Dr. Fabian's death, D mailed a letter and two pages from the trust agreement to P and informed her that she would not be receiving anything from Dr. Fabian's trust upon Mrs. Fabian's future death because the share that would have been distributed to her would, instead, be distributed to Eli's estate. Since P's cousin, Miriam was Eli's only heir, Miriam would now stand to be the beneficiary of both her share and P's share. The document makes clear that the division and distribution of the trust corpus are to occur only after the death of both Dr. Fabian and his wife. P claims that D knew that Dr. Fabian wanted Eli's share of the trust to pass to the two named nieces if Eli was not alive at the time of distribution to receive his share. The use of the word 'me' in the last sentence defeated her uncle's intentions by inadvertently disinheriting P. P sued D for the drafting error. P filed an action for reformation. Two of the three trustees, Mrs. Fabian, who held the life interest, and Walter Pikul, Dr. Fabian's long-time business advisor, agreed that the trust document contained a drafting error. P's cousin Miriam, strenuously opposed reformation, as did D, who maintained the trust document was unambiguous and did not need correction. P accepted a settlement paid for by the trust. P stipulated she was not releasing any claim she had against Ds. P sued Ds as the drafters of the trust agreement asserting a tort claim for professional negligence (attorney malpractice) and a claim for breach of contract on behalf of a third-party beneficiary. Ds moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cause of action. The court granted the motion and P appealed. The court reasoned that South Carolina law recognizes no duty in the absence of an attorney-client relationship. P appealed.