Claveloux v. Bacotti
778 So. 2d 399, 2001 WL 52754 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawsuit for intentional interference with an inheritance expectancy cannot be brought while the testator is still alive, even if the testator is incompetent, unless the available post-death remedies, such as a will contest in probate court, are virtually certain to be inadequate.
Facts:
- Christine Claveloux was the only child of Anna McGloin and was the secondary beneficiary of her mother's estate under a prior estate plan.
- Shortly after Claveloux's father died in December 1996, McGloin's physician found her to be incompetent.
- During this period, McGloin's nephew, Joseph Bacotti, involved himself in her life and finances.
- Within two weeks of her husband's death, McGloin closed her bank accounts and moved the funds into new accounts owned jointly with Bacotti.
- After McGloin's own attorney refused to alter her estate plan, Bacotti hired another attorney to do so.
- McGloin then executed a new will and trust that disinherited Claveloux and named Bacotti as the primary beneficiary of her tangible property and a 50% beneficiary of the rest of her estate.
- Following these events, McGloin's condition deteriorated, and a court appointed a plenary guardian to manage her person and property.
Procedural Posture:
- Christine Claveloux sued Joseph Bacotti in Florida circuit court (trial court) for intentional interference with an expectancy of an inheritance.
- Bacotti filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The circuit court granted Bacotti's motion and dismissed Claveloux's lawsuit.
- Claveloux, as the Appellant, appealed the dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, where Bacotti was 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:
Does a testator's incompetency create an exception to the general rule that a claim for intentional interference with an inheritance expectancy cannot be brought until after the testator's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Northcutt, J.
No, a testator's incompetency does not, by itself, create an exception to the rule that a claim for intentional interference with an expectancy must be brought after the testator's death. The court reasoned that there is a strong policy preference for resolving inheritance disputes in probate proceedings after death, which safeguards the testator's interests. An exception to this rule is allowed only in rare circumstances where post-death remedies are 'virtually certain to be inadequate,' such as in Carlton v. Carlton where the tortfeasor predeceased the testator. Here, Claveloux has an adequate remedy after her mother's death: she can challenge the will and trust in probate court on the grounds of undue influence or fraud. The testator's incompetency and the familial relationship between the parties do not render these future probate remedies inadequate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the high bar for bringing a claim of intentional interference with an expectancy before the testator's death. It specifically rejects the argument that a testator's incompetency automatically renders post-death remedies inadequate. The ruling solidifies the precedent from Whalen v. Prosser, ensuring that such claims are channeled through the probate system first, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. This promotes judicial economy and prevents premature litigation over the assets of a living person, even one who is legally incapacitated.
