Bailey McGowan, Volume 50 Online Edition Editor
JUSTICE BROWN DELIEVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The Supreme Court of Texas refused to recognize tortious interference with inheritance as a recognizable claim in a recent case. Instead, the Court held because a district court had imposed a constructive trust, there was no need to recognize the tort.
The case arose out of a claim on undue influence over the sale of a family-owned ranch. The testatrix owned a majority of the ranch and the surface and mineral interest were to pass via a trust, with the residual beneficiary being her niece. After the testatrix moved to a 24-hour assisted living unit, her residual beneficiary persuaded the testatrix to sell the ranch, resulting in the proceeds passing to the residual beneficiary. The trust beneficiaries sued, claiming the residual beneficiary defrauded them by claiming the testatrix was running out of money and tortuously interfered with their inheritance,
The Supreme Court of Texas has never recognized a claim of tortious interference with inheritance. While some appellate courts have, others argue appellate courts should not create new causes of action. The petitioners argued cases such as Pope v. Garrett, and King v. Acker, point to an implied adoption of the tort. The Court held this was not a correct interpretation and instead a constructive trust was used to appropriately address those grievances. Additionally, the Court declined to find the Estates Code Section 54.001(a) created the cause of action and instead was a limitation the Legislature put on the possibility of the cause of action.
In this instance, the Court held a constructive trust was an adequate remedy for the petitioners because the constructive trust was made for the amount of proceeds the residual beneficiary would have received. Additionally, the Court found that even though some of the proceeds had depleted due to court costs, the remedy was still appropriate.