This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Simpson Sr. executed a will that had been drafted by Calivas (D), attorney at law. The will left all real estate to Simpson Jr. (P) except for a life estate in a homestead for a home to Roberta, P's stepmother and Sr.'s wife. After Sr.'s death P and Roberta filed a petition to determine what the meaning of the word homestead meant; all of Sr.'s property including a house and 100 acres of land and buildings used in the family business or only just the house and limited surrounding acreage. The probate court took evidence but refused to take the evidence that D took during consultations with Sr. that read: House to wife as a life estate remainder to son...remaining land to son. The court construed the will to provide Roberta with a life estate in all the property. P then negotiated with his stepmother to buy out her life estate for $400,000. P then sued D in malpractice on a third-party beneficiary theory and negligence. The trial court directed a verdict for D based on P's failure to introduce any evidence on breach of duty and that an attorney who drafts a will owes no duty to intended beneficiaries. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.