Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals considered whether Texas recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance. The court held that neither the Texas Legislature nor the Texas Supreme Court had recognized such a damages claim and declined to create one as an intermediate appellate court. It reversed the trial court’s judgment awarding the Archers damages and rendered judgment that they take nothing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Texas law recognizes a common-law cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance rights.
- Whether Texas Supreme Court precedent, Texas Estates Code section 54.001, or the existing tort of interference with contract or prospective business relations establishes or supports such a cause of action.
- Whether the Archers could recover attorney's fees and related damages through the asserted inheritance-interference theory.
Holdings
- Texas law does not authoritatively recognize a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance, and an intermediate court of appeals will not create that new cause of action absent recognition by the Texas Legislature or the Texas Supreme Court.
- Neill v. Yett did not recognize or endorse a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance rights.
- Pope v. Garrett recognized an equitable constructive-trust remedy for property wrongfully acquired, not an action at law for damages based on interference with an expected inheritance.
- Texas Estates Code section 54.001 does not affirmatively recognize a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance.
Key quotations
“Because we conclude it does not, we must reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment that the Archers take nothing on their claim against the Andersons.” (176)
“Absent legislative or supreme court recognition of the existence of a cause of action, we, as an intermediate appellate court, will not be the first to do so.” (177)
“For these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment that the Archers take nothing.” (179)
Factual background
Jack Archer's relatives, the Archers, claimed that Ted Anderson interfered with their inheritance rights. Through guardianship proceedings and related litigation, the Archers reinstated Jack Archer's original estate plan and received the inheritance they claimed. They then sought principally to recover attorney's fees incurred in obtaining that inheritance, and a jury found that Anderson had tortiously interfered with their inheritance rights.
Procedural history
The Archers pursued guardianship proceedings and related litigation concerning their uncle Jack Archer's estate and ultimately reinstated his original estate plan. After receiving their inheritance, they sought damages, principally attorney's fees incurred in obtaining it, on a tortious-interference-with-inheritance theory. A jury found in their favor, and the trial court entered a damages judgment. The court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment that the Archers take nothing.