Intentional Interference With Expected Inheritance in California

Disputes over inheritances often begin in probate court, but in rare and serious situations, California allows an additional civil claim known as intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI). This tort provides a separate avenue for relief when a wrongdoer has deliberately disrupted an expected gift or inheritance through independently wrongful conduct and probate remedies alone cannot make the injured party whole.

From Probate Disputes to a Standalone Tort

Historically, most inheritance conflicts were resolved exclusively through probate procedures, such as will contests, objections to trust accountings, or challenges to fiduciary conduct. The Restatement (Second) of Torts, however, articulated a civil claim for situations in which a person uses fraud, duress, or other tortious means to prevent someone else from receiving an inheritance or gift they otherwise would have obtained. Over time, a significant number of U.S. jurisdictions adopted some version of this theory.

On May 3, 2012, the California Court of Appeal brought California into line with that majority by formally recognizing IIEI as a viable cause of action. In doing so, the court emphasized that the tort is intended to fill gaps where probate remedies are inadequate, and not to duplicate or undermine the existing probate framework.

Core Concept: Protecting an Expected Inheritance

At its core, IIEI is designed to protect a reasonable expectation of inheritance or gift from intentional and wrongful interference by a third party. The plaintiff does not have to show that they were formally named in a will or trust; instead, they must demonstrate that, absent the interference, they had a legitimate expectancy of receiving some interest from the decedent.

• The expectation may arise from a long-standing plan, a draft estate document, or clear assurances from the decedent.
• The interference must consist of conduct that is independently wrongful, such as fraud, undue influence, or breach of fiduciary duty.
• The wrongful acts must directly cause the loss of the expected inheritance.

This structure allows courts to address misconduct that aims to divert or destroy an inheritance while still respecting the primacy of probate where adequate remedies exist.

Elements of Intentional Interference With Expected Inheritance

California courts and jury instructions identify several distinct elements that must be proven for an IIEI claim to succeed. These are closely aligned with the formulation provided in leading appellate authority and the California Civil Jury Instructions.

Several of these elements mirror other interference torts in California, such as interference with contract or economic expectancy, but they are tailored to the estate-planning context.

Relationship Between IIEI and Probate Remedies

California courts are careful to restrict IIEI to situations in which probate does not offer a sufficient remedy. If a will contest, trust petition, or other probate procedure can adequately address the alleged wrongdoing and restore the plaintiff’s interest, courts are likely to deny or limit an IIEI claim.

• Probate-first approach: Judges typically expect parties to pursue available probate remedies before seeking relief through IIEI.
• No duplication of remedies: Where probate can provide full relief—such as invalidating a tainted instrument or surcharging a bad-faith fiduciary—courts may view an additional tort claim as unnecessary or potentially duplicative.
• Gap-filling role: IIEI is most relevant when the wrongful acts occur outside the reach of probate procedures or result in the loss of an expectancy that cannot easily be restored by modifying existing estate documents.

This limitation underscores that IIEI is not a routine claim to be added to every inheritance dispute, but rather a targeted remedy for specific, hard-to-reach forms of misconduct.

Examples of Independently Wrongful Conduct

Not every family disagreement or last-minute change to an estate plan will qualify as intentional interference. The underlying conduct must be independently wrongful—meaning it would be actionable even if no inheritance were involved.

Common categories of such conduct include:

• Fraud: Providing false information to the testator or settlor in order to induce them to alter or revoke an expected gift.
• Duress: Using threats or coercion to force the testator to change their estate plan.
• Undue influence: Exploiting a position of trust or vulnerability to override the testator’s free will in favor of the wrongdoer or their preferred beneficiaries.
• Breach of fiduciary duty: A fiduciary (such as an attorney or trustee) misusing their authority or access to interfere with the formation or execution of estate documents.

California courts require plaintiffs to tie the interference to one or more of these recognized wrongs, rather than relying on generalized allegations of unfairness or family discord.

Directing Conduct at the Testator or Another Third Party

A distinctive feature of IIEI in California is the requirement that the defendant’s independently tortious actions be directed at someone other than the plaintiff, such as the testator. In practical terms, this means the wrongdoer attempts to influence or deceive the person making the estate plan, causing them to take steps that ultimately deprive the plaintiff of their expected inheritance.

In abstract terms, the pattern often looks like this:

• The plaintiff expects to receive a bequest from a parent, partner, or other relative.
• The defendant knows of this expectation and wants to alter the outcome.
• The defendant engages in wrongful conduct targeted at the testator—for example, lying about the plaintiff or exerting undue influence.
• The testator responds by changing a will, trust, or beneficiary designation in a way that cuts the plaintiff out or reduces their share.
• As a result, when the testator dies, the plaintiff’s expected inheritance has disappeared, and probate provides no straightforward way to reconstruct what would have occurred absent the wrongdoing.

This focus on conduct directed at the testator reinforces the idea that IIEI is an interference-with-relations tort, not simply a claim for unfair treatment of a disappointed heir.

Damages and Practical Relief

When a plaintiff successfully proves IIEI, California courts may award damages designed to approximate the value of the lost inheritance. Because the interference happens before the decedent’s death and disrupts expected testamentary dispositions, the court often has to reconstruct the probable estate plan and the plaintiff’s lost share based on evidence.

Potential forms of relief can include:

• Monetary damages: The value of the inheritance or gift the plaintiff would have received, measured at or around the time of the decedent’s death.
• Supplemental remedies: In limited circumstances, courts may consider equitable relief or coordination with probate outcomes to avoid double recovery and ensure fairness.

Courts are wary of speculative claims, so plaintiffs must provide credible evidence of the decedent’s specific estate-planning intent and the financial impact of the interference.

Policy Debates: Should the Tort Exist at All?

The recognition of IIEI has sparked significant scholarly debate. Some commentators argue that the tort is conceptually and practically unsound and should be repudiated. They point to several concerns:

• Overlap with probate: Many disputes could, in theory, be handled through probate mechanisms, raising questions about the necessity of a separate tort.
• Uncertainty of expectancy: Because estate plans are inherently revocable, expectations may be fragile, making it difficult to determine causation and damages with precision.
• Risk of expanded litigation: The tort might encourage additional civil suits in already complex and emotional family conflicts, increasing cost and uncertainty.

Supporters, by contrast, emphasize that the tort is narrowly confined and plays a valuable role in addressing misconduct that falls outside the reach of probate or involves wrongs against the testator that are not adequately remedied by altering existing instruments.

When Might IIEI Be Considered?

While each situation is fact-specific, IIEI typically comes into play in scenarios where a person can show both a strong factual basis for an expected inheritance and clear evidence of serious, independently wrongful interference aimed at the testator.

Indicators that such a claim might be explored include:

• A long-standing estate plan, later altered under suspicious circumstances shortly before death.
• Evidence that a third party provided false information, threats, or manipulative pressure to induce changes that disinherit an expected beneficiary.
• Situations where probate procedures cannot easily reinstate the expected disposition, such as missing or destroyed estate documents allegedly caused by a wrongdoer.

Even in these scenarios, courts will scrutinize whether probate remedies might still be adequate, and whether the plaintiff can meet the demanding elements of IIEI.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a written will or trust required to claim IIEI?

No. California courts do not require the plaintiff to be formally named in a will or trust to assert an expectancy. The key is whether there is credible evidence that the plaintiff would have received an inheritance or gift absent the interference.

Can IIEI be used whenever I am unhappy with a probate outcome?

Not generally. IIEI is reserved for situations involving independently wrongful conduct and where probate remedies are inadequate to address the harm. Disappointment with a lawful estate plan or family disagreements alone will not satisfy the elements of the tort.

What kinds of wrongful acts typically support an IIEI claim?

Acts such as fraud, duress, undue influence, and breach of fiduciary duty are commonly cited as independently tortious conduct in IIEI cases. Ordinary persuasion or expressions of opinion about estate planning, without more, are unlikely to qualify.

Does the wrongful conduct have to target the testator?

Yes, in California the interference generally must be directed at someone other than the plaintiff, often the testator or settlor, causing that person to alter or revoke the plaintiff’s expected inheritance.

How do courts determine the value of the lost inheritance?

Courts look at evidence of the decedent’s likely estate plan, the size of the estate, and the plaintiff’s expected share, then attempt to estimate the loss with reasonable certainty. Speculative or weak evidence tends to undermine the claim.

Similar Articles

Your First Credit Card: How to Avoid Costly Fine‑Print Traps

Smart Student Borrowing: A Financial Literacy Guide

Brendlin v. California and the Fourth Amendment Passenger Rule

Miranda v. Arizona and the Birth of Modern Police Warnings

Bankruptcy Glossary: Plain-Language Guide To Common Terms Now

Understanding Bankruptcy Noticing in Federal Courts

Author

Sneha TeteBeauty & Lifestyle Writer

 

Sneha is a relationships and lifestyle writer with a strong foundation in applied linguistics and certified training in relationship coaching. She brings over five years of writing experience to waytolegal,  crafting thoughtful, research-driven content that empowers readers to build healthier relationships, boost emotional well-being, and embrace holistic living.

Read full bio of Sneha Tete