Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog
Beneficiaries can, in some cases, sue a lawyer who drafted a trust for legal malpractice. This is even true where the beneficiaries were not clients of the lawyer. They often neglect to sue until it is too late and the statute of limitations has run. The Indiana Court of Appeals just decided one such case: Julia Beaman and William Bobbs, Jr. v. F. Jefferson Crump, III, Estate of Carolyn Janice Bobbs, and First Financial Bank, N.A., No. 25A-PL-2471 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2026). In these cases, the adult children of a parent who remarried are often the plaintiffs. Estate planning in those situations inevitably involves some compromise between the second spouse and the adult children. When the adult children lose out, as they did here, the lawyer is often a defendant in the lawsuit.
Statement of Facts
Julia Beaman and William Bobbs, Jr. (Plaintiffs) are the adult children of William Bobbs, Sr. (Bobbs Sr.) and his late first wife. In 1999, Bobbs Sr. married Carolyn Janice Bobbs (Jan). In August 2017, Bobbs Sr. and Jan consulted attorney F. Jefferson Crump, III regarding estate planning and funding Jan’s potential living expenses at Four Seasons Retirement Community if Bobbs Sr. predeceased her. Crump issued a joint representation engagement letter in November 2017 advising them of potential conflicts of interest, which both Bobbs Sr. and Jan executed.
Discussions centered on establishing an inter vivos Qualified Terminable Interest Property (QTIP) trust. During a December 9, 2017 family lunch, Bobbs Sr. discussed the proposed QTIP trust with Plaintiffs. Although Bobbs Sr. suggested the trust was revocable and that he retained control over investments during his lifetime, Bobbs Jr. suspected a conflict of interest on Crump’s part and discussed his misgivings with attorney friends. Neither plaintiff requested or reviewed trust drafts at that time.
On January 10, 2018, Bobbs Sr. executed the irrevocable QTIP trust agreement, transferring approximately $3,000,000 to First Financial Bank as trustee. The trust provided income to Bobbs Sr. for life, and upon his death, provided Jan with all net income plus discretionary principal distributions necessary to cover her rental costs at Four Seasons. Plaintiffs were designated remainder beneficiaries entitled to any assets remaining upon Jan’s death.
Bobbs Sr. passed away on May 12, 2020. Following his death, Jan fell, required higher-tier care at Four Seasons, and the trustee distributed substantial trust assets to cover those expenses. Jan died on September 20, 2023, during the litigation.
Procedural History and Claims
On February 24, 2022, Plaintiffs filed suit against Crump and Jan (later substituting Jan’s estate), asserting negligence and legal malpractice against Crump. Plaintiffs alleged that Crump drafted a trust that permitted excessive payouts contrary to Bobbs Sr.’s intent, facilitated undue influence, and drafted the irrevocable trust when Bobbs Sr. lacked capacity. Crump moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the claims were barred by the two-year legal malpractice statute of limitations. The Marion Superior Court granted summary judgment for Crump on July 8, 2025, finding that the cause of action accrued at the latest when the inter vivos trust was executed on January 10, 2018.
Issues Raised on Appeal
Plaintiffs raised three issues on appeal, with the Court of Appeals addressing one dispositive issue:
-
Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment by determining that Plaintiffs’ legal malpractice action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations (Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4(a)).
Specifically, the appeal centered on whether the cause of action accrued upon Bobbs Sr.’s death on May 12,2020 (under the testamentary rule of Shideler v. Dwyer, on the theory that damages were not ascertainable and the trust did not become irremediable until death), or whether it accrued upon the execution of the inter vivos trust on January 10, 2018 (under Ickes v. Waters).
Holding and Decision
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of Crump. The court distinguished a will from an inter vivos trust, explaining that an inter vivos trust takes immediate dispositive and operative effect upon its execution. Because Plaintiffs were aware of the trust’s creation and harbored concerns regarding undue influence and conflicts of interest in late 2017, ordinary diligence required them to investigate and challenge the trust within two years of its execution. Because suit was not initiated until February 24, 2022—more than two years after the trust was created—the claims were untimely.
Comment: this decision is well-reasoned. These are tough cases for lawyers because the spouse and children have conflicting interests. It is difficult for any lawyer to avoid this problem.
Thanks to Donald Patrick Eckler who posted about this case on LinkedIn.