{"id":223,"date":"2026-01-29T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-29T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=223"},"modified":"2026-01-29T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-29T12:00:00","slug":"halperin-v-halperin-a172110-iiei-adequate-probate-remedy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=223","title":{"rendered":"Halperin v. Halperin \u2014 Civil Tort of Intentional Interference With Expected Inheritance Unavailable Where Plaintiff Had Adequate Probate Remedy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Halperin v. Halperin<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
1st District Court of Appeal, Division Four<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-29<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
A172110<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Intentional Interference with Expected Inheritance, IIEI, Adequate Remedy, Probate, Trust Litigation<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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 \u2014 IRA retirement accounts subject to high tax burdens and unfavorable distribution rules \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal affirmed. California recognizes the IIEI tort, but only where the plaintiff lacks an adequate alternative remedy. The probate framework \u2014 including trust contests, removal proceedings against trustees, elder-isolation petitions, and undue-influence challenges \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The court therefore upheld the dismissal of Susan’s IIEI claim with prejudice.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n