Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Hotz v. Minyard | 304 S.C. 225, 403 S.E.2d 634 (1991)

Attorneys owe clients certain duties related to protecting and promoting clients’ interests. The execution of those duties can become complicated if an attorney represents multiple parties with an interest in the same matter. We explore the intersection of an attorney’s fiduciary duty and joint representation in Hotz versus Minyard.

Minyard owned two car dealerships, Greenville and Anderson. Minyard’s son, Tommy Minyard, ran Greenville, and Minyard’s daughter, Judy Hotz, worked at Anderson. When Minyard wanted to execute a will, he visited Robert Dobson, an attorney who routinely worked with the Minyard family. In front of his wife, secretary, Tommy, and Dobson, Minyard executed a will leaving Greenville to Tommy and dividing most of the remaining estate equally between Tommy and a trust for Judy. But later the same day, Minyard returned to Dobson’s office and secretly executed a new will, identical to the first except for a provision granting Tommy the real estate on which Greenville was located.

When Judy had questions about her father’s will, she met with Dobson, whose firm had recently prepared her own will and who had personally advised her on multiple business matters. At Minyard’s direction, Dobson showed Judy a copy of the first will and discussed it but didn’t disclose that it had been revoked by a second will. And Dobson’s statements led Judy to believe that she would receive the Anderson dealership and an equal share of Minyard’s estate.

The next year, a business dispute arose between Tommy and Judy. Judy consulted a law firm about a potential suit. In response, Minyard removed Judy as a will beneficiary. But Dobson told her that if she discarded her plan to sue, then she would be reinstated. Judy did so, believing that reinstatement would eventually entitle her to the Anderson dealership and an equal share of Minyard’s estate.

When Judy later learned that her understanding was incorrect, she sued Dobson and Tommy, asserting various claims, including a claim against Dobson for breach of fiduciary duty for misleading her.

The trial court granted summary judgment in Dobson’s favor on that claim, finding that, as related to Minyard’s will, Dobson was Minyard’s attorney, not Judy’s, and Dobson therefore didn’t owe Judy a fiduciary duty. Judy appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть