Case of the Month Halperin v. Halperin

When family disputes arise over inheritance, emotions often run high. But as a recent California Court of Appeal decision makes clear, not every grievance belongs in a civil lawsuit. Sometimes, the only proper forum is probate court.

Here, a daughter sued her brothers claiming they intentionally interfered with her expected inheritance. She alleged their father intended to amend his trust to equalize distributions among his three children. According to her complaint, the brothers interfered with that plan by isolating their father, influencing him, and preventing the amendment from being completed before his death.

Rather than filing only in probate court, she brought a civil tort claim for what is known as intentional interference with an expected inheritance, or IIEI. That tort is recognized in California, but only in narrow circumstances.

The trial court dismissed her lawsuit. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

The appellate court explained that the tort of intentional interference with inheritance is considered a last resort remedy. It is only available when the person claiming harm has no adequate remedy in probate court. If probate provides a way to address the issue, even if the available remedies are different from civil damages, the tort claim cannot proceed.

Here, the daughter had already filed a probate petition while her father was alive. As a beneficiary, she had standing in probate and could have pursued remedies there related to the trust and the alleged interference. Because probate was available to her, the court held she could not maintain a separate civil tort claim for interference.

The court emphasized an important principle. The tort exists to protect testamentary expectancies when probate is unavailable, not to create an alternative path whenever someone prefers damages over probate relief. Probate and tort law serve different purposes. When probate can address the dispute, it controls.