Intentional Interference with An Expected Inheritance Recognized in California

Marc MacGinnis was dying and wanted to leave half of his estate to his longtime partner, Brent Beckwith, and the other half to his sister Susan Dahl MacGinnis. At one point before MacGinnis’s surgery, Dahl had shown Beckwith a will that distributed the estate as such. While MacGinnis was waiting for a risky surgery, he asked that Beckwith print out the will so MacGinnis could sign it. Beckwith could not find the original will, so he drafted a new one with an online program and then made the mistake of showing it to Dahl. In a sneaky fashion,Dahl instructed Beckwith that he should not have MacGinnis sign the will and that she would have a lawyer friend draft up a trust instead for tax reasons. Dahl knew that if MacGinnis died without a will, she would get everything because she was his only living relative. MacGinnis did indeed die before ever actually signing a will and Beckwith was left wanting.

On May 3, 2012, in Beckwith v. Dahl, G044479, the Fourth Appellate District became the first California Court of Appeals to recognize intentional interference with an expected inheritance. The claim is comprised of five elements including: 1) expectation of receiving an interest through inheritance, 2) causation, 3) intent to interfere with the inheritance, 4) independently tortuous interference, and 5) damages. The facts before the court in this case and policy reasons including upholding the integrity of the probate process, and enforcing the rule against gratuitous promises convinced the court that it was time to recognize this cause of action. 

There are limitations to this action including: 1) the plaintiff must have no other remedy in probate; 2) the defendant’s tortuous conduct has to be the reason that probate does not offer an adequate remedy; 3) the plaintiff has to show with reasonable probability that he would have received the inheritance but for the interference.

See Hopkins & Carley, California Recognizes Intentional Interference with an Expected Inheritance as a Valid Cause of Action, JDSupra.com, May 9, 2012. 

Special thanks to Jim Hillhouse (Professional Legal Marketing (PLM, Inc.)) for bringing this article to my attention.