Article on A New Hope: Tortious Interference with an Expected Inheritance in Rhode Island

Rebecca M. Murphy and Samantha M. Clarke recently published an Article entitled, A New Hope: Tortious Interference with an Expected Inheritance in Rhode Island, 22 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 531-589 (2017). Provided below is an abstract of the Article: 

An extension of actions for interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with an expected inheritance, creates liability for a tortfeasor who intentionally prevents another from receiving an inheritance, at-death benefit, or lifetime gift. It is rooted in the concept that causes of action such as undue influence and fraud, typically brought in the probate courts, may be insufficient to provide a disinherited victim with a remedy, and premised on the maxim that every wrong should have a remedy.

Tortious interference with an expected inheritance or gift, though by no means a recently developed cause of action, has gained traction since its adoption by the Restatement (Second) of Torts in 1979, 2 and has received attention since the highly publicized 2006 United States Supreme Court decision in Marshall v. Marshall, perhaps better known as the Anna Nicole Smith litigation. 3 Currently, about half of the states acknowledge the tort. 4 Many of these states adopt the definition provided by the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 774B (1979):

One who by fraud, duress or other tortious means intentionally prevents another from receiving from a third person an inheritance or gift that he would otherwise have received is subject to liability to the other for loss of the inheritance or gift. 

However, many of the states that recognize the tort only allow a claim of tortious interference where an alternate remedy at law (be it through the states’ probate code or otherwise) is unavailable…