Montana Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Claim

This was a legal malpractice case decided earlier this year. The defense was successful in proving that the lawyer’s advice had nothing to do with the harm (the severing of a joint tenancy). The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiff’s right of survivorship had already been destroyed decades before he received the disputed legal advice.

• The Property: In 1986, James “Buck” MacLaurin Jr., Dorothy Wardwell, and Mary MacLaurin took ownership of real estate as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. This status meant that if one owner died, their share would automatically transfer to the surviving owners.
• The 1987 Deed: In 1987, Buck and Wardwell signed a deed giving Mary a life estate in the property, granting her full control and possession for the rest of her life.
• The 2020 Advice: In 2020, Buck hired Fischer Law to create a living trust. On the firm’s advice, he signed a deed transferring his interest in the property into his trust.
• The Dispute: After Mary died in 2022, her estate claimed a 50% ownership stake in the property. Buck sued Fischer Law for legal malpractice, claiming the firm’s 2020 advice mistakenly broke the joint tenancy and ended his right to inherit Mary’s share automatically.

The plaintiff, James “Buck” MacLaurin Jr., contended that Fischer Law gave him negligent legal advice that caused him to sever his joint tenancy and destroy his right of survivorship.

Specifically, Buck argued that:

• The Negligent Act: In 2020, the law firm advised him to sign a quitclaim deed transferring his individual interest in the real property into the J.D.M. Living Trust.
• The Harm: He believed this specific transfer is what legally broke the joint tenancy. As a result, when Mary MacLaurin died in 2022, her estate was able to claim a 50% ownership interest in the property rather than that share automatically transferring to him under survivorship rights.

In short, Buck claimed the law firm’s estate planning advice directly cost him half the value of the property. The court disagreed.

Did Fischer Law’s 2020 legal services cause Buck to lose his right of survivorship, or was the joint tenancy already broken by the 1987 life estate deed?

The Montana Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fischer Law, holding that the joint tenancy was severed in 1987, not 2020.

• The Four Unities: To maintain a joint tenancy in Montana, four elements must remain intact: interest, title, time, and possession. If any of these elements are destroyed by an owner’s actions, the joint tenancy is broken.
• Destruction of Interest: When Buck and Wardwell gave Mary a life estate in 1987, they surrendered their current rights to the property and kept only a future interest. Because Mary had full possession and they had none, their shares were no longer equal.
• No Malpractice: Because the 1987 deed destroyed the “unity of interest,” the joint tenancy and Buck’s right of survivorship vanished at that time. Therefore, Fischer Law’s 2020 advice did not cause Buck any legal harm.

Comment: This was excellent defense work explaining that the joint tenancy was severed long before the lawyer was involved. Often defense lawyers will come up with a good solution to a malpractice case that was unanticipated.