utah_court_cases:estate_attorney_malpractice_-_case_summary_murphy_v._housel
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
utah_court_cases:estate_attorney_malpractice_-_case_summary_murphy_v._housel [2022/08/11 21:21] admin |
utah_court_cases:estate_attorney_malpractice_-_case_summary_murphy_v._housel [2022/08/11 21:27] admin |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Estate Attorney Malpractice – Case Summary (Murphy v. Housel) ====== | ====== Estate Attorney Malpractice – Case Summary (Murphy v. Housel) ====== | ||
| - | In 1985, Dominic Badura died. His will named his brothers and sister as the personal representatives (or executors) of his estate. One of the brothers, Mr. Badura, hired a law firm, Housel & Housel (“Housel”), | + | In 1985, Dominic Badura died. His will named his brothers and sister as the personal representatives (or executors) of his estate. One of the brothers, Mr. Badura, hired a law firm, Housel & Housel (“Housel”), |
| In 1987, Housel filed paperwork valuing the estate at less than $400,000. In 1986, if an estate was worth over $400,000, the estate owed an “estate tax” to the IRS, so valuing the estate at less than $400,000 meant that no estate tax was due. Subsequently, | In 1987, Housel filed paperwork valuing the estate at less than $400,000. In 1986, if an estate was worth over $400,000, the estate owed an “estate tax” to the IRS, so valuing the estate at less than $400,000 meant that no estate tax was due. Subsequently, | ||
utah_court_cases/estate_attorney_malpractice_-_case_summary_murphy_v._housel.txt · Last modified: 2022/08/11 22:09 by admin