Tensfeldt v. Haberman

*370PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.

¶ 85. {concurring in part, dissenting in part). I agree with the majority opinion that the third-party claim for negligence against Attorney Roy C. LaBudde (LaBudde) should be dismissed and that the claims against Attorney E William Haberman should be dismissed as well.1 I write separately for three reasons: (1) I conclude that the plaintiffs' claim against LaBudde, based on aiding and abetting Robert Tensfeldt (Robert) in allegedly violating a provision of a 1974 divorce judgment that required him to will two-thirds of his net estate to his three adult children,…