May 17

Executor Does Not Have Standing to Pursue Legal Malpractice Claim When Estate Is Not Damaged

Marietta Meisler had a trust that apportioned assets equally between her two children. In 2000, she hired Richard Weinberg to draft another trust that gave her daughter, Carole Meisler, a 60 percent interest in the trust.

After Marietta died, Carole sued Mr. Weinberg for legal malpractice, alleging that his failure to include successor replacement language in the trust led to the estate not being divided according to Marietta’s wishes. Mr. Weinberg filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court found Carole did not have standing to sue for legal malpractice, and Carole appealed, arguing that as executor, she had standing to sue.

The Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth District, affirms, holding that Carole does not have standing to sue Mr. Weinberg because she did not have an attorney-client relationship with him and the damages sought are individual to Carole. The court rules that an executor does not have “standing to assert a legal malpractice claim when the estate as a whole has not been diminished.” The court notes that even if Carole has standing, there is no evidence that the attorney acted contrary to Marietta’s wishes.

For the full text of this decision, go to: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2017/2017-Ohio-1563.pdf

May 15

Nursing Home’s Claim Against Resident’s Spouse Under Necessaries Statute Can Continue

Cora Sue Bell’s husband, Robert, resided in a nursing home for a few months before he died, accruing $1,678 in unpaid nursing services.

The nursing home sued Mrs. Bell under Ohio’s necessaries statute. The statute requires a married person to pay for a spouse’s necessities if the spouse is unable to support him- or herself. Mrs. Bell argued that Mr. Bell could support himself because he had 54 days of skilled nursing home Medicare coverage remaining. The trial court granted summary judgment to Mrs. Bell, ruling that the nursing home was required to pursue a claim against Mr. Bell’s estate before pursuing a claim under the necessaries statute. The nursing home appealed.

The Ohio Court of Appeals, 12th District, reverses, holding that summary judgment is not appropriate because more facts are needed to determine whether Mr. Bell could support himself. The court rules that the necessaries statute creates a separate cause of action that is not dependent on pursuing a claim against the estate. According to the court, the fact that Mr. Bell had insurance policies through Medicare that may have covered the nursing costs is not enough to affirmatively demonstrate that the nursing home “could not establish the inability to support element of its necessaries claim.”

For the full text of this decision, go to: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/12/2017/2017-Ohio-1499.pdf