O'DONNELL v. Smith

Texas Supreme Court

O'DONNELL v. Smith

197 S.W.3d 394, 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 908, 2006 Tex. LEXIS 648, 2006 WL 1793540

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJune 30, 2006

Docket05-0072

StatusPublished

This text of 197 S.W.3d 394 (O'DONNELL v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'DONNELL v. Smith, 197 S.W.3d 394, 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 908, 2006 Tex. LEXIS 648, 2006 WL 1793540 (Tex. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

One of the issues in this legal malpractice case is whether an estate’s personal representative can sue the decedent’s former attorneys for malpractice they are alleged to have committed in advising the decedent in his capacity as executor of his wife’s estate. Citing this Court’s decision in Barcelo v. Elliott, 923 S.W.2d 575 (Tex.1996), and its own holding in Belt v. Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, Inc., 141 S.W.3d 706, 708 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004), the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment favoring the attorneys, because the estate’s executor and the estate lacked privity of contract with the decedent’s former attorneys. 2004 WL 2877330. After the court of appeals’ opinion issued in this case, we granted the petition for review and reversed the court of appeals’ judgment in Belt. See Belt v. Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 780 (Tex.2006).

Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we grant the petition for review without reference to the merits, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand this case to that court for reconsideration in light of our decision in Belt. See TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1, 60.2(f).

Justice GREEN did not participate in the decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

One of the issues in this legal malpractice case is whether an estate’s personal representative can sue the decedent’s former attorneys for malpractice they are alleged to have committed in advising the decedent in his capacity as executor of his wife’s estate. Citing this Court’s decision in Barcelo v. Elliott, 923 S.W.2d 575 (Tex.1996), and its own holding in Belt v. Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, Inc., 141 S.W.3d 706, 708 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004), the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment favoring the attorneys, because the estate’s executor and the estate lacked privity of contract with the decedent’s former attorneys. 2004 WL 2877330. After the court of appeals’ opinion issued in this case, we granted the petition for review and reversed the court of appeals’ judgment in Belt. See Belt v. Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 780 (Tex.2006).

Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we grant the petition for review without reference to the merits, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand this case to that court for reconsideration in light of our decision in Belt. See TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1, 60.2(f).

Justice GREEN did not participate in the decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 S.W.3d 394, 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 908, 2006 Tex. LEXIS 648, 2006 WL 1793540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odonnell-v-smith-tex-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack