Background
Gregory Engellant, who had been under a guardianship and conservatorship following a traumatic brain injury, retained attorney Daniel McLean of Crowley Fleck in 2012 for estate planning. Greg executed a will that left any remaining Engellant Ranch Corporation stock to his niece, Shana Diekhans, and later transferred his 3,923 shares—worth about $1.7 million—to her during his lifetime.
After Greg died, Daren Engellant, acting as personal representative of Greg’s estate, sued Crowley Fleck for malpractice. He alleged that the firm negligently facilitated the stock gift without adequately investigating Greg’s capacity, finances, and circumstances. A jury found that Greg’s 2012 will was his last valid will and testament, meaning Shana would have received the stock under the will even without the lifetime transfer. The District Court entered judgment for Crowley Fleck.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. Evidence concerning the validity of Greg’s 2012 will was relevant to causation and damages in the malpractice case: if the will validly gave the stock to Shana, the estate was not harmed by the stock’s earlier transfer to her. Crowley Fleck’s argument was a permissible denial of elements of Daren’s prima facie malpractice claim, not an unpleaded affirmative defense.
The Court also held that the jury’s determination did not adjudicate the separate probate matter or control which will the probate court ultimately may admit. It served only the “suit within a suit” function of deciding whether the alleged malpractice caused estate damages. The Court rejected Daren’s remaining instructional and evidentiary challenges and upheld the denial of Kevin Engellant’s post-judgment intervention motion as untimely. Because it affirmed the judgment, the Court did not reach Crowley Fleck’s statute-of-limitations cross-appeal.
Key Takeaways
- In legal-malpractice litigation, evidence may be relevant if it negates causation or damages, even when it concerns a separate pending probate dispute.
- A jury’s finding about a will in the malpractice case does not determine the will’s probate status or bind the probate court.
- A nonparty who knew of litigation for years but sought intervention after final judgment filed too late.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that estate-planning malpractice plaintiffs must prove an actual, non-speculative economic injury. Where an allegedly mishandled lifetime transfer mirrors a valid testamentary disposition, the plaintiff may be unable to establish that the estate would have retained the asset absent the lawyer’s conduct.
Justice Bidegaray concurred separately to emphasize that testamentary capacity to execute the 2012 will did not necessarily establish Greg’s capacity or independent intent to make the separate lifetime stock gift. But Daren’s acquiescence in the special verdict form and failure to preserve a viable damages theory supplied no basis to reverse.