Intentional Interference with an Expected Inheritance

Most people have heard of Will Contests and Trust Contests where the validity of a will or trust is contested by allegations of undue influence or lack of capacity to execute the will or trust. These contests occur in probate court, not civil court. Far fewer people know about the Intentional Interference with an Expected Inheritance” (“IIEI”). The IIEI is a tort, i.e., a civil lawsuit, that was created in common law (i.e., court case law). IIEI does not apply when a remedy exists in Probate law. California courts first recognized the IIEI in the 2012 Court of Appeals, Fourth District, opinion in Beckwith v. Dahl, 05 Cal.App.4th 1039 (May 3, 2012)).

So what exactly is the IIEI civil lawsuit remedy? It is a narrowly purposed remedy that may apply when the plaintiff has lost an expected inheritance due to the wrongful interference such that the Plaintiff but for the wrongful interference would have likely inherited a gift from the Testator (will maker).

In the Beckwith v. Dahl landmark California Court of Appeals decision, the plaintiff Beckwith was the unmarried partner of the decedent MacGinnis, and so was not an heir. MacGinnis, while dying, had asked Beckwith to print out a will that MacGinnis had stored on his computer. It would have left Beckwith one-half of MacGinnis’ estate and the other one-half to MacGinnis’ sister Dahl, and sole heir. Dahl misled Beckwith by persuading Beckwith not to do as Mac Ginnis had requested because Dahl would herself arrange for a living trust to be prepared that would accomplish the same but also avoid probate. Furthermore, Dahl did not tell Beckwith that the Decedent had a high chance of dying in surgery. As a result, McGinnis died intestate (without a will or trust) and his estate went entirely to his sole heir, his sister Dahl.

The plaintiff in an IIEI has these six elements to prove: (1) Expectancy of an inheritance; (2) the Plaintiff would have received the inheritance but for the Defendant’s interference; (3) the Defendant knew about the expectancy and intentionally interfered; (4) the Defendant’s interference was in itself independently wrongful conduct; (5) the Plaintiff suffered a loss; and (6) there is no remedy lawsuit.

First, Expectancy of an inheritance means that the Plaintiff had a realistic and not speculative basis to expect an inheritance. In Beckwith v. Dahl, Beckwith’s expectancy was realistic because MacGinnis had told Beckwith that he wanted to sign a will leaving Beckwith one-half of his estate.

Second, but for the Defendant’s interference the Plaintiff would have received the inheritance. In Beckwith, had Dahl not have interfered with MacGinnis’s request to Beckwith to bring MacGinnis a will to sign, then MacGinnis would have signed a will leaving half to Beckwith.

Third, in Beckwith, the Dahl knew from Beckwith that MacGinnis wanted to sign a will that left his estate equally between Beckwith and Dahl, and Dahl intentionally interfered by dissuading Beckwith to give MacGinnis a printed copy of his will to sign, as asked.

Fourth, this is particularly important, in Beckwith the Dhal’s conduct was itself independently wrongful conduct towards MacGinnis and not towards Beckwith. That is, the Defendant interfered with the MacGinnis’s right to say who inherits his estate. Thus, the underlying wrong is the means of wrongful interference.

Fifth, the plaintiff suffered a loss due to not receiving the inheritance. In a Will Contest, at issue is whether the contested Will is to be probated and its terms enforced. Not so in an IIEI lawsuit.

Sixth, the plaintiff must be unable to pursue a remedy in the probate code. In Beckwith, the Plaintiff was not married to the decedent MacGinnis and had no standing to participate in the probate of the decedent’s intestate estate because Beckwith was not an heir.

The foregoing discussion is not legal advice. The foregoing brief discussion is not legal advice. Dennis A. Fordham, attorney, is a State Bar-Certified Specialist in estate planning, probate and trust law. His office is at 870 S. Main St., Lakeport, Calif. He can be reached at Dennis@DennisFordhamLaw.com and 707-263-3235.