Utah Recognizes the Tort of Intentional Interference with Inheritance

On July 1, 2021, the Utah Supreme Court held that the tort of intentional interference with inheritance is a valid cause of action in Utah. See generally, Matter of Est. of Osguthorpe, 2021 UT 23, 491 P.3d 894. The case involved a dispute between the children of Dr. D.A. Osguthorpe and David R. Rudd and the law firm of Ballard Spahr, LLP, with the children arguing that Rudd had "improperly influenced Dr. Osguthorpe to amend his will and trust in a manner that shifted a portion of the Children's expected inheritance" to Dr. Osguthorpe's second wife and his alma mater. The Supreme Court agreed with the children that the district court erred by declining to recognize intentional interference with inheritance as a tort and by dismissing their claim "on the alternative ground that, even if the tort were a valid cause of action in Utah, the probate proceeding would resolve all of their complaints."

While the Uniform Probate Code is intended to address and provide remedies for many kinds of trust and estate disputes, the Court concluded that "there are claims that seek to remedy other types of harms and thus are not displaced" by the Probate Code. For example, the Probate Code may not have an adequate remedy for a claim that "'the decedent intended to create a different will' which would have added a gift to the plaintiff, yet the decedent 'was prevented from doing so by the defendant.'" Similarly, in a claim that a "'defendant's tortious conduct had caused the testator to make an inter vivos conveyance... of assets that would otherwise have been part of the estate, setting aside the will" under the Uniform Probate Code would not provide an adquate remedy.

The elements for a claim of intentional interference with an inheritance in Utah come from the Third Restatement of Torts and are as follows:

   (a) the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of receiving an inheritance or gift;
   (b) the defendant committed an intentional and independent legal wrong;
   (c) the defendant's purpose was to interfere with the plaintiff's expectancy;
   (d) the defendant's conduct caused the expectancy to fail; and
   (e) the plaintiff suffered economic loss as a result.

However, the claim of intentional interference with inheritance cannot be brought under any circumstance. Specifically, it "'is not available to a plaintiff who had the right to seek a remedy for the same claim' under Utah's Probate Code." For example, traditional claims of fraud, duress, or undue influence would need to be brought within the framework of the Probate Code. Nevertheless, Utah's recognition of the tort of intentional interference with inheritance will help fill in some gaps where a wrongdoing may otherwise elude a straight-forward remedy.

Posted in: Probate