Estate Essentials Library

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • estate_attorney_malpractice_-_case_summary_murphy_v._housel
utah_court_cases:estate_attorney_malpractice_-_case_summary_murphy_v._housel

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
utah_court_cases:estate_attorney_malpractice_-_case_summary_murphy_v._housel [2022/08/11 21:20]
admin 		utah_court_cases:estate_attorney_malpractice_-_case_summary_murphy_v._housel [2022/08/11 22:09] (current)
admin created
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”), to probate the will in court.  Housel proceeded to make serious mistakes. See Murphy v. 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”), to probate the will in court.  Housel proceeded to make serious mistakes. See {{wiki:murphy-v.-housel-housel.pdf|Murphy v. 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 late 1987, Housel determined that certain estate assets were not valued as part of the estate.  Therefore, Housel prepared additional paperwork valuing the estate at over $400,000 ($476,000). 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 late 1987, Housel determined that certain estate assets were not valued as part of the estate.  Therefore, Housel prepared additional paperwork valuing the estate at over $400,000 ($476,000).
Line 19: Line 19:
 Housel & Housel had clearly committed malpractice, but the Badura family simply waited too long to pursue any claim. Housel & Housel had clearly committed malpractice, but the Badura family simply waited too long to pursue any claim.
  
-See our analysis of this case in the blog titled “TWO ATTORNEYS: WOULD YOU CHOOSE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME?“+See our analysis of this case in the blog titled {{wiki:1988-murphy-v.-housel-housel-analysis-wyoming-two-attorneys-would-you-choose-right-the-first-time.pdf|“TWO ATTORNEYS: WOULD YOU CHOOSE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME?“}}
  
-See Murphy v. Housel & Housel, 955 P.2d 880 (Wyoming 1988)((After Mr. Badura filed the lawsuit, Delphine Badura Murphy was substituted as a party to this case. Thus, the name of the case.)).    +See {{wiki:murphy-v.-housel-housel.pdf|Murphy v. Housel & Housel}}, 955 P.2d 880 (Wyoming 1988).((After Mr. Badura filed the lawsuit, Delphine Badura Murphy was substituted as a party to this case. Thus, the name of the case.))    
  
 By: Kelly Perri By: Kelly Perri
  
  
utah_court_cases/estate_attorney_malpractice_-_case_summary_murphy_v._housel.1660252859.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/08/11 21:20 by admin

Page Tools

©2023 Hughes & Misener Estate Attorneys.