Briggs v. Briggs (In re Certification of Court)
931 N.W.2d 510 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
South Dakota does not recognize a cause of action for tortious interference with an inheritance or expectancy of inheritance because the state's existing statutory probate and trust remedies, along with equitable remedies like the constructive trust, are adequate to address such claims.
Facts:
- Thomas Briggs and his sister, Judith Briggs, were the children of Elizabeth and Willard Briggs, who in 1995 created wills and revocable living trusts.
- Thomas alleged that the original estate plan treated him and Judith as equal beneficiaries.
- After their father Willard died in 1997, their mother Elizabeth's health began to decline, and Judith became her primary caretaker.
- Thomas claimed that Judith developed a confidential relationship with Elizabeth, began isolating her from others, and started controlling her personal and financial decisions.
- Thomas last spoke to his mother in 2006.
- In 2009, Elizabeth amended her trust to remove Thomas as a beneficiary, and in 2012, she amended it again to remove his daughter.
- Elizabeth passed away on July 16, 2013.
- Thomas alleged that Judith failed to inform him of their mother's death; he learned of it a month later from a letter sent by Elizabeth's attorney, which also stated he had been disinherited.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Briggs first filed a petition in South Dakota circuit court (a court of first instance) to contest the validity of his mother's trust.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition as untimely.
- Thomas Briggs, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court (the state's highest court) affirmed the circuit court's dismissal, holding the action was time-barred.
- Thomas Briggs then filed a new complaint against his sister, Judith Briggs, in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
- The U.S. District Court dismissed some of Thomas's claims but certified the unresolved legal question regarding the existence of the tort of intentional interference with inheritance to the South Dakota Supreme Court for a definitive ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does South Dakota law recognize a cause of action for tortious interference with an inheritance or expectancy of inheritance?
Opinions:
Majority - Jensen, Justice
No. South Dakota declines to recognize a cause of action for tortious interference with an inheritance or expectancy of inheritance. The court reasoned that existing South Dakota law provides an adequate panoply of remedies for the wrongs alleged in such a claim. Specifically, challenges to the validity of a will or trust based on fraud, duress, or undue influence must be brought through the established statutory probate and trust contest procedures. Furthermore, wrongful inter vivos transfers that deplete an estate can be remedied through the imposition of a constructive trust. The court concluded that creating a new tort would be improvident, as it would duplicate existing remedies and encourage inefficient relitigation of issues better handled within the comprehensive legislative framework governing estates and trusts.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies South Dakota's position against adopting a modern tort that many other jurisdictions have recognized in some form. By rejecting tortious interference with inheritance, the court reinforces the primacy and exclusivity of statutory probate and trust remedies. The ruling signals that litigants who believe they were wrongly disinherited must strictly adhere to the established procedures and deadlines for will and trust contests, as they cannot later pursue a separate tort action against the alleged wrongdoer. This case illustrates a principle of judicial restraint, where the court defers to the comprehensive statutory scheme created by the legislature rather than expanding common law tort liability into the area of estate litigation.
