Edward A. Schilling v. Maria Herrera

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that a claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance does not require a breach of duty to the beneficiary, and the complaint sufficiently alleged the elements of expectancy, tortious interference (e.g., undue influence), causation, and damages. The court further held that the plaintiff was not barred for failing to exhaust probate remedies because the alleged extrinsic fraud—concealing the testator’s death until after probate—fell within the exception for circumstances that effectively preclude adequate relief in probate court. The dismissal was reversed and remanded.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint states a cause of action. The elements are (1) existence of an expectancy; (2) intentional interference through tortious conduct; (3) causation; and (4) damages. Breach of a legal duty owed to the beneficiary is not an element. The complaint's allegations that the plaintiff was the prior sole beneficiary, that the defendant unduly influenced the decedent to execute a new will, and that the plaintiff lost his expected inheritance sufficiently plead the claim.
2. The plaintiff is not barred. The complaint alleges extrinsic fraud—that the defendant concealed the death until after probate concluded—preventing a will contest. This falls within an exception to the exhaustion rule recognized in DeWitt v. Duce and applied in Ebeling v. Voltz.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint states a cause of action for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance.
2. Whether the plaintiff is barred from bringing the action for failure to exhaust probate remedies.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded