Schilling v. Herrera
952 So. 2d 1231 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may pursue a tort claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance, even without exhausting probate remedies, if the defendant's extrinsic fraud prevented the plaintiff from obtaining adequate relief in the probate court.
Facts:
- In 1996, Mignonne Schilling executed a will naming her brother, Edward A. Schilling, as her sole beneficiary.
- As Mignonne's health declined, she became dependent on her caretaker, Maria Herrera, and in 2003 moved into a converted garage at Herrera's home.
- In September 2003, while Mignonne was ill and dependent on her, Herrera convinced Mignonne to execute a new will naming Herrera as the sole beneficiary, without Schilling's knowledge.
- On August 6, 2004, Mignonne died at Herrera's home.
- Herrera initiated probate proceedings for the new will but did not inform Schilling of his sister's death.
- During the probate period, Schilling attempted to contact his sister through Herrera, but Herrera did not return his calls.
- On December 6, 2004, four months after Mignonne's death and after the period for creditors' claims in probate had expired, Herrera finally informed Schilling that his sister had passed away.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward A. Schilling sued Maria Herrera in a Florida trial court for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance.
- The trial court granted Herrera's initial motion to dismiss without prejudice.
- Schilling filed an amended complaint asserting the same cause of action.
- Herrera filed a renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that Schilling was barred for failing to exhaust his probate remedies.
- Schilling, as the appellant, appealed the final dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a tort claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance barred as a matter of law if the plaintiff failed to challenge the will in probate court, when the plaintiff alleges that the defendant's extrinsic fraud prevented them from having a fair opportunity to do so?
Opinions:
Majority - Rothenberg, Judge
No, the claim is not barred. A claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance may proceed if the plaintiff was prevented from seeking relief in probate court by the defendant's fraudulent conduct. The general rule from DeWitt v. Duce requires a plaintiff to exhaust probate remedies before filing such a tort claim. However, DeWitt also established an exception for cases where the defendant's fraud is not discovered until after probate, or where the fraudulent conduct itself effectively precludes adequate relief in the probate court. In this case, Schilling alleged two distinct frauds: Herrera's undue influence in procuring the new will (intrinsic fraud) and her subsequent intentional concealment of the decedent's death to prevent Schilling from contesting that will (extrinsic fraud). The allegation of extrinsic fraud, which prevented a fair contest in probate, brings this case within the exception, making dismissal of the complaint improper. The trial court also erred by dismissing the claim for failing to allege a duty, as the tort of intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance does not include breach of a legal duty owed to the beneficiary as an element.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the 'extrinsic fraud' exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of probate remedies for intentional interference with expectancy claims. It establishes that fraudulent conduct aimed at preventing a will contest, such as concealing a death, is sufficient to allow a beneficiary to bring a separate tort action after the probate period has closed. This prevents a wrongdoer from benefiting from a procedural bar that they themselves created through fraudulent means. The case serves as a critical precedent for plaintiffs who were denied a fair opportunity to challenge a will due to the defendant's deceptive actions, ensuring that the courthouse doors are not closed to them.
