Intentional Interference with Testamentary Expectation

Although California courts had yet to join the states that have adopted the tort of Intentional Interference with Expected Inheritance (“IIEI”), the Court of Appeal recently held that “it is time to officially recognize this tort claim.” Beckwith v. Dahl, 205 Cal. App. 4th 1039, 1046 (2012); see id. at 1056 (“a court should recognize the tort of IIEI if it is necessary to afford an injured plaintiff a remedy,” unless the plaintiff has an adequate remedy in probate).

It described the requirements to plead the tort as follows:

1. “[T]he plaintiff must plead he had an expectancy of an inheritance”;
2. “[A]s in other interference torts, the complaint must allege causation”;
3. “[T]he plaintiff must plead intent, i.e., that the defendant had knowledge of the plaintiff's expectancy of inheritance and took deliberate action to interfere with it”;
4. “[T]he complaint must allege that the interference was conducted by independently tortious means, i.e., the underlying conduct must be wrong for some reason other than the fact of the interference”;
5. “[T]he plaintiff must plead he was damaged by the defendant’s interference”; and
6. “[A]n IIEI defendant must direct the independently tortious conduct at someone other than the plaintiff. The cases firmly indicate a requirement that ‘[t]he fraud, duress, undue influence, or other independent tortious conduct required for this tort is directed at the testator. The beneficiary is not directly defrauded or unduly influenced; the testator is.’”

Subscribers To The California Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The California Litigation Guide To Access Everything!