THELMA MULVEY v. SHEILA STEPHENS
250 So. 3d 106 (2018)
Rule of Law:
A claim for tortious interference with an expectancy requires proof of intentional interference through independently tortious conduct, such as fraud, duress, or other means that destroy the testator's free agency, not merely general unpleasantness or unsuccessful allegations of undue influence in probate court.
Facts:
- While married to his first wife, Jack Mulvey ("Decedent") established a revocable trust for the ultimate benefit of his children and grandchildren, which included a property known as the "Ranch."
- After his first wife died, the Decedent married Thelma Mulvey ("Widow") in 1999.
- In 2007, the Decedent and the Widow sold a portion of the Ranch, and the resulting mortgage was later amended to prohibit conveyance and reduced by $250,000.
- In 2008, the Decedent restated his trust, providing the Widow with $50,000, his predeceased son Kevin Mulvey's estate with 16 acres of the Ranch, his daughter Sheila Stephens ("Daughter") with $65,000 cash, and his other son Sean Mulvey with $65,000 cash.
- In 2010, the Decedent executed a self-proving will, revoking all previous wills, including a 2005 pour-over will, and giving the Widow the residue and remainder of his estate.
- The Daughter testified the Widow made belittling comments to the Decedent and stated that "your kids hope you die so they get all your money."
- The Daughter alleged the Widow interfered with her brother Sean Mulvey's attempts to speak to the Decedent from prison.
- The Widow testified she and the Decedent did not consolidate their finances and that her understanding was the Ranch was placed in their names because she loaned him a substantial sum of money and paid many of his bills.
Procedural Posture:
- Upon the Decedent's death in 2011, Sheila Stephens ("Daughter") petitioned the probate court for administration of a 2005 pour-over will and sought to invalidate the 2010 will, alleging undue influence by Thelma Mulvey ("Widow") and lack of testamentary capacity.
- After a trial, the probate court found the 2010 will valid, concluding it was not the product of undue influence and that the Decedent had testamentary capacity.
- Following the probate proceedings, the Daughter filed a complaint in the circuit court for tortious interference with expectancy against the Widow.
- The Daughter's claim proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the Daughter, awarding her $60,000 in damages.
- During the trial, the Widow moved for a directed verdict, which the court denied.
- The Widow subsequently moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which the trial court also denied.
- The trial court issued a final judgment in accordance with the jury verdict, and Thelma Mulvey (Appellant) appealed this judgment to the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth 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:
Does a plaintiff asserting a claim for tortious interference with an expectancy present competent substantial evidence of intentional interference through tortious conduct when the evidence consists of general belittling comments, public complaints about assistance, alleged interference with phone calls, and an unsuccessful probate challenge based on undue influence, without demonstrating an independent tort committed against the testator?
Opinions:
Majority - Kuntz, J.
No, a plaintiff asserting a claim for tortious interference with an expectancy does not present competent substantial evidence of intentional interference through tortious conduct based solely on the evidence described. Justice Kuntz, writing for the majority, reversed the trial court's denial of the Widow's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), finding no competent evidence to support the Daughter's claim. The court emphasized that the tort of interference with a testamentary expectancy requires intentional interference through "tortious conduct," which must constitute an independent tort. This means the alleged conduct must go beyond mere persuasion and rise to the level of "over persuasion, duress, force, coercion, or artful or fraudulent contrivances to such an extent that there is a destruction of free agency and willpower of the testator." The evidence presented by the Daughter, including general belittling comments, public complaints about assisting the Decedent after his stroke (which occurred after the Ranch transfer), and alleged interference with phone calls to her brother in prison, did not meet this high standard. The Daughter and other witnesses admitted they had no direct evidence that the Widow interfered with the Decedent's property or lied to him. Furthermore, the probate court had already found the 2010 will was not the product of undue influence, concluding no credible evidence of mental impairment. The Widow's uncontradicted testimony that the Ranch was placed in their names to repay a substantial loan further negated claims of tortious interference related to the Ranch's ownership. Thus, the Daughter failed to establish the second essential element of the tort: intentional interference through independently tortious conduct.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent evidentiary burden for proving the "tortious conduct" element in a claim for tortious interference with an expectancy. It reinforces that allegations of general unpleasantness, familial discord, or even perceived undue influence (especially if a probate challenge has failed) are insufficient without specific evidence of an independent tort, such as fraud or duress, that directly caused the loss of the expectancy. The ruling limits the scope of this tort, ensuring it applies only to egregious acts that truly subvert a testator's free will, rather than mere persuasion or interpersonal conflicts. This sets a high bar for plaintiffs and emphasizes the importance of preserving testamentary freedom unless there is clear proof of unlawful interference.
