Reported / Citable
Background
Susan Halperin, her brothers David and Michael, and their father Warren Halperin were all involved in a dispute over Warren’s 2014 trust. After Susan learned the trust’s terms in early 2021, she believed her share — IRA retirement accounts subject to high tax burdens and unfavorable distribution rules — was about $1 million less valuable than her brothers’ outright distributions. Warren told Susan that he intended to amend the trust to equalize the children’s shares and that he had spoken with an attorney about doing so.
Susan alleged her brothers interfered with Warren’s effort to amend the trust by, among other things, repeatedly contacting his attorney to object, slandering Susan to Warren, urging restraining orders against her, filing false police reports, threatening third parties, and isolating Warren in an assisted living facility. In December 2022, Susan filed a probate petition asserting elder isolation and seeking to remove David from his roles. Warren died in March 2023; Susan dismissed the probate petition without prejudice in May 2023.
In March 2024, Susan filed this civil action asserting intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI) and elder financial abuse. David demurred. The trial court sustained the demurrer to the IIEI claim without leave to amend, finding Susan had an adequate remedy in probate. Susan appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. California recognizes the IIEI tort, but only where the plaintiff lacks an adequate alternative remedy. The probate framework — including trust contests, removal proceedings against trustees, elder-isolation petitions, and undue-influence challenges — provides robust mechanisms to address the kind of conduct Susan alleged. Where those probate tools were available, the IIEI tort cannot be used to overlay a parallel civil action.
That Susan had voluntarily dismissed her probate petition in May 2023 did not establish that she lacked an adequate remedy. The relevant question is whether an adequate remedy was available, not whether the plaintiff chose to pursue it. Susan’s strategic decision to abandon the probate forum did not unlock the IIEI cause of action.
The court therefore upheld the dismissal of Susan’s IIEI claim with prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- The intentional-interference-with-expected-inheritance tort in California is residual; it is not available when the plaintiff has an adequate remedy in probate.
- The availability of probate remedies — trust contests, fiduciary removal, elder-isolation petitions, undue-influence challenges — typically forecloses the IIEI tort.
- A plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses a probate petition cannot resurrect IIEI as a backup civil claim; the inquiry is whether the probate remedy was available, not whether it was pursued.
- Plaintiffs alleging interference with inheritance should generally pursue probate remedies first and consider civil torts only if those remedies are unavailable or genuinely inadequate.
- Counsel should be cautious about voluntary dismissals of probate petitions that may extinguish underlying remedies critical to later civil tort claims.
Why It Matters
The Halperin decision is significant guidance for California probate and trust litigators about the narrow scope of the IIEI tort. By confirming that the IIEI tort is unavailable when probate remedies exist (whether or not the plaintiff actually used them), the First District has reaffirmed California’s strong preference for handling estate-and-trust disputes within the probate system rather than through parallel civil-tort actions.
For practitioners, the practical takeaway is to pursue the probate-track remedies promptly and aggressively. Strategic use of probate tools — trust contests, fiduciary-removal motions, undue-influence and elder-isolation petitions — should be the first line of relief. Voluntarily dismissing a probate petition can have far-reaching consequences, including loss of the very remedy that would otherwise have been adequate to address inheritance interference.