Summary
The Florida Supreme Court held that a claim for tortious interference with a testamentary expectancy is barred as an impermissible collateral attack on a probated will when the plaintiff had an adequate remedy in the probate proceeding—such as the opportunity to contest the will on grounds of undue influence or lack of capacity—but failed to pursue it. The court interpreted Florida Statutes § 733.103(2), which makes probate conclusive as to the will’s validity and freedom from fraud or undue influence, to codify the common-law rule that a later tort action is precluded unless probate remedies were inadequate. Because the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their probate challenge and could have obtained full relief there, they could not relitigate the same issues in a subsequent tort suit.
Holdings
- Florida law precludes a subsequent tort action for wrongful interference with a testamentary expectancy when the plaintiff had an adequate remedy in probate and a fair opportunity to pursue it but failed to do so.
Questions Presented
- Does Florida law, statutory or otherwise, preclude plaintiffs from proving the essential elements of their claim for tortious interference with an inheritance where the alleged wrongfully procured will has been probated in a Florida court and plaintiffs had notice of the probate proceeding and an opportunity to contest the validity of the will therein but chose not to do so?
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (28)
- Davison v. Feuerherd, 391 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)(distinguished)
- Sally Leybourne Allen v. Charlotte Leybourne, Allen v. Leybourne, 190 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)(distinguished)
- Kramer v. Freedman, 272 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)(applied)
- Allen v. Lovell's Adm'x, 303 Ky. 238, 197 S.W.2d 424 (1946)(applied)
- McGregor v. McGregor, 101 F. Supp. 848 (D. Colo. 1951), aff'd, 201 F.2d 528 (10th Cir. 1953)(applied)
- Johnson v. Stevenson, 269 N.C. 200, 152 S.E.2d 214 (1967)(applied)
- Brignati v. Medenwald, 315 Mass. 636, 53 N.E.2d 673 (1944)(applied)
- Benedict v. Smith, 34 Conn. Supp. 63, 376 A.2d 774 (1977)(applied)
- Creek v. Laski, 248 Mich. 425, 227 N.W. 817 (1929)(distinguished)
- Dulin v. Bailey, 172 N.C. 608, 90 S.E. 689 (1916)(applied)
Showing top 10 of 28.
Cited In (8)
- Evelyn G. DeWITT and Mabel M. DeWitt, Appellants, v. Estelle R. DUCE, Dallas W. Weaver and Mabel E. Weaver, Appellees., DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1981)(applied)
- Evelyn G. DeWITT and Mabel M. DeWitt, Appellants, v. Estelle R. DUCE, Dallas W. Weaver and Mabel E. Weaver, Appellees., DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1981)(distinguished)
- Evelyn G. DeWITT and Mabel M. DeWitt, Appellants, v. Estelle R. DUCE, Dallas W. Weaver and Mabel E. Weaver, Appellees., DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1981)(followed)
- Evelyn G. DeWITT and Mabel M. DeWitt, Appellants, v. Estelle R. DUCE, Dallas W. Weaver and Mabel E. Weaver, Appellees., DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1981)(followed)
- Evelyn G. DeWITT and Mabel M. DeWitt, Appellants, v. Estelle R. DUCE, Dallas W. Weaver and Mabel E. Weaver, Appellees., DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1981)(relied_upon)
- Evelyn G. DeWITT and Mabel M. DeWitt, Appellants, v. Estelle R. DUCE, Dallas W. Weaver and Mabel E. Weaver, Appellees., DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1981)(followed)
- Evelyn G. DeWITT and Mabel M. DeWitt, Appellants, v. Estelle R. DUCE, Dallas W. Weaver and Mabel E. Weaver, Appellees., DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1981)(distinguished)
- Evelyn G. DeWITT and Mabel M. DeWitt, Appellants, v. Estelle R. DUCE, Dallas W. Weaver and Mabel E. Weaver, Appellees., DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216, 218 (Fla. 1981)(not reached)