When someone wrongfully interferes with an expected inheritance, whether by procuring a will through fraud, exerting undue influence over a vulnerable testator, or suppressing a valid testamentary document, the aggrieved party may have a remedy that extends beyond the traditional will contest. The tort of intentional interference with inheritance, sometimes called tortious interference with an expectancy, provides an independent cause of action in civil court that can reach conduct the probate process cannot adequately address.

The Elements of the Claim

The tort of intentional interference with inheritance generally requires the plaintiff to establish four elements: the existence of a reasonable expectancy of receiving an inheritance or gift; intentional interference with that expectancy through tortious conduct such as fraud, duress, or undue influence; a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's loss of the expected inheritance; and resulting damages.^[1]

The first element, the expectancy, does not require certainty. The plaintiff need not prove that the inheritance was guaranteed, only that there was a reasonable basis for expecting to receive it. Evidence of a prior will naming the plaintiff as a beneficiary, statements by the decedent expressing an intent to provide for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff's status as a natural object of the decedent's bounty can all support the existence of a reasonable expectancy.

Tortious Conduct

The second element requires proof that the defendant engaged in independently tortious conduct. Not every action that causes a person to lose an expected inheritance is actionable. The interference must involve conduct that is wrongful apart from the resulting harm. The Restatement (Second) of Torts identifies several categories of qualifying conduct, including fraud, duress, undue influence, defamation, tortious abuse of a fiduciary relationship, and forgery or suppression of a will.^[2]

This requirement distinguishes tortious interference from mere disappointment. A person who persuades a testator to change a will through legitimate means, such as honest conversation or the provision of accurate information, has not engaged in tortious conduct, even if the change disadvantages another potential beneficiary. The interference must involve deception, coercion, or abuse of a position of trust.

The Relationship to Probate Proceedings

In many jurisdictions, the tort of intentional interference with inheritance is available only when the probate process provides an inadequate remedy. This requirement, sometimes called the "probate remedy exception," exists to prevent parties from circumventing the probate court's jurisdiction by repackaging will contests as tort claims.

The tort claim may be particularly valuable in several situations. First, it may provide a remedy when the statute of limitations for a will contest has expired but the tortious conduct was not discovered until later. Second, it may be available when the wrongful conduct occurred during the testator's lifetime in a way that affected inter vivos gifts or beneficiary designations that are not subject to probate. Third, the tort claim may allow recovery of damages that are not available in probate, including punitive damages for egregious conduct.

Mississippi's Position

Mississippi has not definitively adopted or rejected the tort of intentional interference with inheritance. The Mississippi Supreme Court has not issued a published opinion squarely addressing the availability of this cause of action. However, the court has recognized related torts, including tortious interference with business relations and tortious interference with contractual obligations, which share the same general framework of intentional interference with a legitimate economic expectancy.^[3]

The absence of controlling Mississippi authority does not mean the claim is unavailable. Mississippi courts have historically been willing to recognize tort claims that are consistent with the Restatement and that serve the underlying policy goals of compensating victims of wrongful conduct and deterring future misconduct. Plaintiffs pursuing this theory in Mississippi should be prepared to present persuasive authority from other jurisdictions and to demonstrate why the claim serves the interests of justice in their specific case.

Practical Considerations

Pursuing a tortious interference claim requires different strategic considerations than a traditional will contest. The burden of proof in a tort action is typically preponderance of the evidence, similar to a will contest, but the range of available damages may be broader. A successful plaintiff can recover the value of the lost inheritance and may also be entitled to consequential damages, emotional distress damages in appropriate cases, and punitive damages if the defendant's conduct was sufficiently egregious.

Discovery in a tort action may also be broader than in a probate proceeding, allowing the plaintiff to explore the defendant's financial records, communications, and relationships with the testator in greater detail. This expanded discovery can be particularly valuable when the wrongful conduct occurred over an extended period and involved sophisticated concealment.

For beneficiaries who believe they have been wrongfully deprived of an inheritance through fraud, undue influence, or other tortious conduct, the potential availability of this independent tort claim is an important consideration in developing a comprehensive litigation strategy. Consulting with counsel experienced in both estate litigation and tort law is essential to evaluating whether this claim is viable and worth pursuing in the specific circumstances of the case.