Beckwith v. Dahl
2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 528, 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 142, 205 Cal. App. 4th 1039 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California recognizes the tort of intentional interference with an expected inheritance (IIEI), but a plaintiff may only bring such a claim if they have no adequate remedy in probate court and the defendant's independently tortious conduct was directed at the testator, not the plaintiff.
Facts:
- Brent Beckwith and Marc Christian MacGinnis were in a long-term, committed relationship for nearly ten years.
- MacGinnis had an unsigned will on his computer that divided his estate equally between Beckwith and his estranged sister, Susan Dahl.
- While hospitalized in May 2009, MacGinnis asked Beckwith to print the will for his signature, but Beckwith could not find the file.
- MacGinnis then instructed Beckwith to create a new will with the same terms, which Beckwith did.
- Before Beckwith could present the new will to MacGinnis, Dahl told Beckwith not to, promising she would have attorneys prepare a living trust with the same terms to avoid probate.
- Relying on Dahl's promise, Beckwith did not give the will to MacGinnis to sign.
- Dahl never prepared or presented any trust documents to MacGinnis.
- MacGinnis died intestate two days after surgery, and his estate of over $1 million passed entirely to Dahl as his sole heir under intestacy laws.
Procedural Posture:
- Dahl opened probate for MacGinnis's estate in Los Angeles Superior Court.
- Beckwith filed an opposition to Dahl's petition for final distribution in the probate court.
- The probate judge found Beckwith lacked standing because he was not an heir or creditor of the estate.
- Beckwith filed a separate civil action against Dahl in the trial court, alleging IIEI and deceit by false promise.
- Dahl filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing California law does not recognize the tort of IIEI.
- The trial court sustained Dahl's demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal.
- Beckwith, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the California Court of Appeal, with Dahl as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should California recognize the tort of intentional interference with an expected inheritance (IIEI) as a valid cause of action when a plaintiff has no adequate remedy in probate?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Leary, P. J.
Yes, California recognizes the tort of intentional interference with an expected inheritance (IIEI). To balance providing a remedy for a wrong with protecting the integrity of the probate system, the tort is available only when a plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy in probate. The court reasoned that this 'last recourse' requirement aligns California with the majority of states that recognize the tort. Citing the legal maxim that 'for every wrong there is a remedy,' the court determined that refusing to recognize the tort would leave some wronged parties without any recourse. However, the court established a critical element for an IIEI claim: the defendant's independently tortious conduct (such as fraud, duress, or undue influence) must have been directed at the testator, not at the plaintiff. This is because the tort protects the testator's right to dispose of their property freely. If the tortious conduct is directed at the plaintiff, the plaintiff has a direct cause of action (e.g., fraud) and the IIEI claim is superfluous. In this case, Beckwith's IIEI claim fails because Dahl's alleged false promise was directed at Beckwith, not MacGinnis. The court reversed the demurrer, however, to give Beckwith an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege tortious conduct against MacGinnis. The court also held that Beckwith did sufficiently state a separate cause of action for deceit by false promise, as Dahl's misrepresentation was made directly to him, he justifiably relied on it, and he suffered damages as a result.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the tort of Intentional Interference with an Expected Inheritance (IIEI) in California, bringing the state in line with the majority of American jurisdictions. By conditioning the tort on the absence of an adequate probate remedy, the court created a 'last resort' cause of action that fills a gap in the law without undermining the established probate system. The court's crucial clarification that the tortious conduct must be directed at the testator provides a bright-line rule for future cases, distinguishing IIEI from direct torts like fraud against a beneficiary. This case defines the contours of the new tort and will guide lower courts in assessing claims where a defendant's actions prevent a decedent's true testamentary intent from being carried out.
