Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Estates and Trusts Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Estates and Trusts

Shoemaker V. Gindlesberger: The Lack Of Privity Defense Survives, But Just Barely, Alan Newman Jul 2008

Shoemaker V. Gindlesberger: The Lack Of Privity Defense Survives, But Just Barely, Alan Newman

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger, decided in May of this year, the Ohio Supreme Court held that: “A beneficiary of a decedent's will may not maintain a negligence action against an attorney for the preparation of a deed that results in increased tax liability for the estate.” In doing so, the Court approved and followed its 1987 decision in Simon v. Zipperstein. Under Zipperstein, an attorney who prepares a will for a client can not be liable in negligence to a third person the client intended to benefit under the will unless (i) the third person was in privity with the …


Shoemaker V. Gindlesberger: The Lack Of Privity Defense Survives, But Just Barely, Alan Newman Jul 2008

Shoemaker V. Gindlesberger: The Lack Of Privity Defense Survives, But Just Barely, Alan Newman

Alan Newman

In Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger, decided in May of this year, the Ohio Supreme Court held that: “A beneficiary of a decedent's will may not maintain a negligence action against an attorney for the preparation of a deed that results in increased tax liability for the estate.” In doing so, the Court approved and followed its 1987 decision in Simon v. Zipperstein. Under Zipperstein, an attorney who prepares a will for a client can not be liable in negligence to a third person the client intended to benefit under the will unless (i) the third person was in privity with the …


Symposium: Issues In Estate Planning For Same-Sex And Transgender Couples: Foreword, Jennifer L. Levi Jan 2008

Symposium: Issues In Estate Planning For Same-Sex And Transgender Couples: Foreword, Jennifer L. Levi

Faculty Scholarship

Despite the sea of change in possibilities for creating lawful relationships for many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals, most jurisdictions do not allow them to marry or enter into any comparable legal status. The vast majority of states either by statute or state constitutional amendment actually prohibit marriage for same-sex couples. And, even when couples can marry or enter into a comparable legal status, they are faced with uncertainty regarding what effect, if any, will be accorded to that status should they travel or move. Given the legal challenges that same-sex couples face, the need for high-quality estate planning …