In a recent legal battle, two siblings are challenging the outcome of their parents’ estate plan, alleging malpractice by the attorneys involved. Barbara and John Anderson filed a complaint on February 8, 2022, in the Court of Appeals for Portage County against attorney Torren K. Pies and others, including Anderson O’Brien, LLP and New York Marine and General Insurance Company. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ negligence in drafting and advising on their parents’ estate plan led to an unintended distribution of assets.
The case revolves around the estate plans of Hiram and Floy Anderson, which were revised in 1998 with assistance from attorneys at the Anderson law firm. Hiram, a former partner at the firm, along with his wife Floy, intended to shift their primary estate planning vehicle from wills to trusts. The revised plan created a Revocable Trust to be divided into a Family Trust and a Survivor’s Trust upon the death of one spouse. The plaintiffs allege that attorney Pies negligently drafted these documents without accurately reflecting their parents’ intent for asset distribution.
Barbara and John contend that their mother Floy misunderstood how her assets would be distributed due to unclear language in the trust documents. They argue that Pies failed to properly illustrate or advise on the implications of this language during meetings with their parents. According to court documents, after Hiram’s death in 2006, Floy amended her Survivor’s Trust multiple times but never altered the Family Trust’s provision for equal distribution among children and grandchildren.
Despite these amendments by Floy, Barbara and John claim they were not consistent with her actual wishes as expressed verbally over time. They point to conversations where Floy allegedly stated her intent was for only her three children to inherit equally. The plaintiffs are seeking relief through damages for what they perceive as negligence leading to an undesired five-way split of assets between children and grandchildren.
The court has thus far sided with Pies regarding his work prior to Hiram’s death but left open claims related to post-2006 advice given by attorney Keith Pilger. Judge Nicholas J. Brazeau Jr., presiding over this matter alongside Judges Stark, Hruz, and Gill, affirmed summary judgment in favor of Pies concerning pre-death actions while allowing further examination into Pilger’s role after Hiram passed away.
Representing Barbara and John are attorneys whose names remain undisclosed within this document; however, legal representation from Anderson O’Brien LLP is noted for defendants including Pies himself. This ongoing case bears significant implications not only for those directly involved but also highlights broader issues surrounding testamentary intent versus legal documentation interpretation.
Case ID: No. 2024AP2417
Source: 2024AP2417_Anderson_v_Pilger_Complaint_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf