205 Cal. App. 4th 1039, 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 142 (2012)
Beckwith and his partner, Marc Christian MacGinnis (MacGinnis), were in a long-term, committed relationship for almost 10 years.1
They leased an apartment together and were occasional business partners.2 MacGinnis had no children and his parents were deceased.3 His sister, Susan Dahl, with whom he had an estranged relationship, was his only other living family.4
At some point during their relationship, MacGinnis showed Beckwith a will he had saved on his computer. The will stated that upon MacGinnis’s death, his estate was to be divided equally between Beckwith and Dahl. MacGinnis never printed or signed the will.5
In May 2009, MacGinnis’s health began to decline. On May 25, 2009, MacGinnis was in the hospital awaiting surgery to repair holes in his lungs.6 He asked Beckwith to locate and print the will so he could sign it. Beckwith went to their home and looked for the will, but he could not find it. When Beckwith told MacGinnis that he could not locate the will, MacGinnis asked Beckwith to create a new will so he could sign it the next day.7
That night, Beckwith created a new will for MacGinnis using forms downloaded from the Internet. The will stated that if Brent Beckwith and Susan Dahl survive him, the residuary estate goes to those named in equal shares.8 Before Beckwith presented the will to MacGinnis, he called Dahl to tell her about the will and e-mailed her a copy.9
Later that night, Dahl responded to Beckwith’s e-mail. She stated that she really thought they should look into a Trust for MacGinnis and that she had two very good friends who are attorneys and she would call them that night.10 After receiving the e-mail, Beckwith called Dahl to discuss the details of the living trust. Dahl told Beckwith not to present the will to MacGinnis for signature because one of her friends would prepare the trust documents for MacGinnis to sign in the next couple of days. Beckwith did not present the will to MacGinnis.11
Two days later, on May 27, MacGinnis had surgery on his lungs. Although the doctors informed Dahl there was a chance MacGinnis would not survive the surgery, the doctors could not discuss the matter with Beckwith since he was not a family member under the law. Nor did Dahl tell Beckwith about the risks associated with the surgery. Dahl never gave MacGinnis any trust documents to sign. After the surgery, MacGinnis was placed on a ventilator and his prognosis worsened. Six days later, Dahl, following the doctors’ recommendations, removed MacGinnis from the ventilator. On June 2, 2009, MacGinnis died intestate. He left an estate worth over $1 million.12
Following MacGinnis’s death, Beckwith and Dahl met to discuss the disposition of MacGinnis’s personal property. After Beckwith suggested they find the will that MacGinnis had prepared, Dahl told Beckwith we don’t need a will. Two weeks after MacGinnis’s death, on June 17, 2009, Dahl opened probate in Los Angeles Superior Court.13 Dahl verbally informed Beckwith that she had opened probate, but she did not send him any copies of the probate filings. In the filing, she did not identify Beckwith as an interested party. Dahl also applied to become the administrator of the estate.14
In September 2009, Beckwith began to ask Dahl for details of the probate case.15 On October 2, 2009, Beckwith looked up the probate case online.16 When Dahl did not respond to his emails, Beckwith sent her another e-mail on December 2, 2009, asking if she needed any information from him regarding the distribution of MacGinnis’s assets.17 This time Dahl responded by e-mail, stating because MacGinnis died without a will, and the estate went into probate, she was made executor of his estate and the court then declared that his assets would go to his only surviving family member which is me.18 A few weeks later, in January 2010, Dahl filed a petition with the probate court for final distribution of the estate.19 Beckwith filed an opposition to Dahl’s petition in March 2010. After a hearing, at which Beckwith was present in pro se, the probate judge found that Beckwith had no standing because he was not a creditor of the estate and he had no intestate rights with regard to MacGinnis’s estate.20
On July 30, 2010, while the probate case was still pending, Beckwith filed the instant civil action against Dahl alleging IIEI, deceit by false promise, and negligence.21 Dahl demurred to all three causes of action.22 At the hearing on the demurrer, the trial court stated it was not in a position to recognize a new tort for IIEI because that really is an appellate decision. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to all three causes of action and dismissed the complaint. Beckwith timely appealed the order sustaining the demurrer as to the first and second causes of action.23
Whether California recognizes the tort of intentional interference with an expected inheritance?24
California recognizes the tort of intentional interference with an expected inheritance when necessary to afford a remedy to an injured plaintiff, provided the plaintiff can allege an expectancy of receiving an inheritance, intentional interference with that expectancy by a third party through independently tortious conduct directed at the testator, proof that the plaintiff would have received the inheritance but for the interference, and resulting damages, with the tort available only when no adequate probate remedy exists.25
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that Beckwith held an expectancy in MacGinnis's estate based on the unsigned will MacGinnis had shown him and later requested to sign before surgery.26 Dahl's actions in promising to prepare trust documents and instructing Beckwith not to present the will created a potential interference, yet the conduct was directed at Beckwith rather than MacGinnis.27 The probate proceedings ultimately denied Beckwith standing, leaving no adequate remedy in that forum.28
These facts align with the policy considerations favoring recognition of the tort to ensure a remedy exists for substantial wrongs without undermining the probate system. The court balanced the need for relief against concerns over speculative claims and probate integrity by imposing the last-recourse requirement and the independently tortious conduct element.29
California recognizes the tort of intentional interference with an expected inheritance.30
Whether Beckwith's complaint sufficiently alleged the elements of intentional interference with an expected inheritance?31
To state a claim for intentional interference with an expected inheritance, the plaintiff must allege facts showing an expectancy of inheritance, intentional interference by independently tortious means directed at the testator rather than the plaintiff, proof that the inheritance would have been received but for the interference, and damages, with the claim available only where probate provides no adequate remedy.3233
No. Beckwith's complaint alleged an expectancy arising from the will MacGinnis intended to sign and resulting damages from losing half the estate valued over one million dollars after MacGinnis died intestate.34 However, the only wrongful conduct described was Dahl's false promise made directly to Beckwith via email and telephone on May 25, 2009, not any independently tortious act directed at MacGinnis himself.35
The facts establish that Dahl never provided trust documents to MacGinnis and that her statements to Beckwith caused him to refrain from presenting the will, but this conduct targeted Beckwith exclusively.36 Because the independently tortious conduct element requires action aimed at the testator, the complaint as pled failed to state the claim despite the unique circumstances that left Beckwith without a probate remedy.37
Beckwith's complaint did not sufficiently allege the elements of intentional interference with an expected inheritance.38
Whether Beckwith's complaint sufficiently alleged the elements of deceit by false promise?39
To state a claim for deceit by false promise under Civil Code sections 1709 and 1710, the plaintiff must allege with particularity a false promise of future action made without intent to perform, knowledge of the falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and resulting damages causally linked to the reliance.40
Yes. The established facts show that on May 25, 2009, Dahl emailed Beckwith promising to have attorney friends prepare trust documents for MacGinnis to sign in the next couple of days and followed up by telephone instructing Beckwith not to present the will.41 The complaint alleged Dahl made this promise without any intention of performing it, with the intent to induce Beckwith to delay presenting the will before MacGinnis's May 27 surgery.42
Beckwith believed the promise, reasonably relied on it given the circumstances of MacGinnis's declining health and his trust in Dahl, and refrained from presenting the will, resulting in MacGinnis dying intestate and Beckwith losing his expected half of the estate.43 These specific allegations of who made the promise, when and how it was made, its falsity at the time, the intent to induce action, actual and justifiable reliance, and the causal link to damages satisfy each element with the required particularity.44
Beckwith's complaint sufficiently alleged the elements of deceit by false promise.45