UPDATES & ANALYSIS

12.27

Intended Beneficiaries Can Sue Financial Advisors for Failure to Carry Out Client’s Wishes

by Ryan Koopmans | December 27, 2013

By Ryan Koopmans

Today the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that financial advisors have a duty to their clients’ intended beneficiaries, and that the beneficiaries can hold the advisors liable for failing to exercise reasonable care in implementing their clients’ wishes.

The case involved a financial advisor who was actively involved in the client’s estate planning – recommending certain trusts, transferring assets to the trusts, and even serving as a fiduciary under the client’s will and trusts.  In 1999, with the financial advisor’s assistance, the client created a revocable trust and transferred his house, among other assets, to the trust.  In 2003, again with the advisor’s assistance, the client revised his estate plan by, among other things, executing a will that left his house to a close friend.  The financial advisor was involved in both estate plans, but the second plan was actually drafted by a different lawyer than the one that prepared the first plan.  In 2003, the advisor failed to notify the new attorney that the client had a revocable trust, let alone that the house was owned by the revocable trust, not by the client directly.  The 2003 plan did not include revoking or de-funding the revocable trust.  Therefore, when the client died in 2006, the house passed according to the terms of the revocable trust, and not according to the new will.

The intended beneficiary of the 2003 will sued the 2003 lawyer and the financial advisor for negligence.  The district court granted the advisor’s summary judgment motion, holding that to create a duty of financial advisors to beneficiaries of a client’s estate or trust would lead to “divided loyalties” and “encourage [the advisor] to practice law without a license.”

The Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding that such a duty does exist as to “direct, intended and specifically identifiable beneficiaries.”  The decision was grounded largely on the Court’s previous rulings, which have held that attorneys and insurance agents owe a duty to their clients’ intended beneficiaries.  The Court noted that the financial advisor “was clearly [the client’s] agent in certain respects,” and “[w]e see no reason to treat one kind of agent differently from another.”  The opinion is here.

SHARE

FEATURED POSTS

October 2024 Opinion Roundup

The Iowa Supreme Court entered opinions in eight cases in October 2024. In addition to Rox Laird’s analysis of State of Iowa v. William Noble Chaiden Miller and Katherine Avenarius and Paul Avenarius v. State of Iowa summarized on this blog, the remaining opinions from October are summarized below.

Iowa Supreme Court deadlocks on specifics required for liability waivers

When Dubuque police officer Katherine Avenarius accidentally shot herself in the leg while attending an Iowa Law Enforcement Academy firearms instructor school, she sued the academy claiming her injury was the result of an instructor’s advice on how to handle her firearm that contradicted how she had previously been trained. The State, which operates the academy, argued Avenarius signed a “clear and unequivocal” waiver and release of liability.

Iowa Supreme Court upholds minimum prison term for juvenile convicted of murder

The Iowa Supreme Court upheld a 35-year minimum prison sentence for a Fairfield juvenile who pleaded guilty to first degree murder for the death of his high school Spanish teacher. In its unanimous decision, the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that, under the Iowa Constitution, the State must present expert testimony showing a minimum sentence is necessary for a juvenile offender.

EDITORIAL TEAM

ABOUT

On Brief: Iowa’s Appellate Blog is devoted to appellate litigation with a focus on the Iowa Supreme Court, the Iowa Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

RELATED BLOGS

Related Links

ARCHIVES