Summary
The Texas Supreme Court held that Texas does not recognize a cause of action for intentional interference with inheritance, resolving a split among the courts of appeals. The court reasoned that existing remedies—including probate law, constructive trusts, restitution, and established torts—adequately redress wrongful interference with expectancies, and that recognizing the tort would conflict with statutory probate procedures and the principle of freedom of disposition. The decision overrules prior appellate cases that had recognized the tort.
Holdings
- There is no cause of action in Texas for intentional interference with inheritance. Existing law affords adequate remedies for the wrongs the tort would redress, and the tort would conflict with Texas probate law.
Questions Presented
- Whether Texas recognizes a cause of action for intentional interference with inheritance.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (18)
- Kinsel v. Lindsey, 526 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. 2017)(followed)
- Pope v. Garrett, 204 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1947), rev'd in part, 211 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1948)(explained)
- King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ)(overruled)
- Yost v. Fails, 534 S.W.3d 517 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.)(overruled)
- Rice v. Rice, 533 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.)(followed)
- Brandes v. Rice Trust, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied)(overruled)
- In re Estate of Valdez, 406 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied)(overruled)
- In re Estate of Russell, 311 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.)(overruled)
- Stern v. Marshall, 471 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.)(overruled)
- Pagayon v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 536 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. 2017)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 18.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…