The Pennsylvania Court recently considered a daughter’s claim that an attorney had tortuously interfered with an inheritance that she expected from her mother. In doing so, the Court confirmed that a cause of action for interference with expected inheritance exists under Pennsylvania law but affirmed the trial court’s determination that the facts pleaded in the Complaint were insufficient to entitle the daughter to relief.
In the case, Fiedler v. Spencer, E. O’Rean Fielder alleged that in 2004, she took her mother, Betty J. Fiedler (“Betty”), to Attorney Patti S. Spencer’s office to have a Will and general Power of Attorney prepared. Attorney Spencer prepared the Will and Power of Attorney naming Betty’s daughters, Fiedler and Latisha Bitts (“Bitts”), as co-executrices and equal co-beneficiaries of her estate, and co-agents under her Power of Attorney.
Over the next two years, as Betty’s health deteriorated, the Power of Attorney was activated and Fiedler and Bitts began to manage Betty’s financial affairs. In 2006, Betty made gifts in the form of checks to Fiedler, Bitts, and, notably, Bitts’ son, Adam Buckius (“Buckius”). That same year, Betty executed a new Will and Power of Attorney naming Bitts as sole executrix and agent, and Buckius as Successor Executor under the Will.
Fiedler further alleged that over the next three years until Betty’s death in September 2009, gifts were made on behalf of Betty and signed by Bitts—including a $330,000.00 check to Buckius to buy a house—and additional checks totaling $150,515.00 almost exclusively to Bitts, Buckius and his wife, and Bitts’ stepson and his wife.
Fiedler filed a Complaint on January 25, 2010, against Attorney Spencer, along with Bitts, Buckius, and Buckius’ wife. In her Complaint, Fielder alleged that Attorney Spencer’s “actions were fraudulent in that she advised Bitts that she could make the $330,000.00 gift in furtherance of Bitt’s [sic] scheme to deplete Betty’s assets” and violate Betty’s testamentary intent. She further alleged that Spencer and Bitts had conspired to remove her “from any position of authority with respect to her mother’s financial affairs so that Bitts could deplete Betty’s estate prior to Betty’s death and eviscerate Betty’s testamentary intention to have her estate divided evenly between Plaintiff and Bitts.” The trial court dismissed Fiedler’s claims with prejudice by order dated May 9, 2019 and Fiedler filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court.
On appeal, Fiedler claimed, among other things, that the trial erred as a matter of law in dismissing her claim for tortious interference with inheritance claim. The Superior Court rejected Fiedler’s argument and affirmed the trial court’s Order dismissing the Complaint.
In doing so, the Superior Court explained that Pennsylvania law has recognized a cause of action for interference with expected inheritance for over a century. To make out a prima facie claim, the plaintiff must plead that: (1) the testator indicated an intent to change her will to provide a described benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant used fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence to prevent execution of the intended will; (3) the defendant was successful in preventing the execution of a new will; and (4) but for the defendant’s conduct, the testator would have changed her will.
The Superior Court acknowledged that the Restatement (Second) of Torts sets forth a more expansive test for intentional interference with an inheritance or gift. That standard, which would include inter vivos transfer, is “[o]ne who by fraud, duress or other tortious means intentionally prevents another from receiving from a third person an inheritance or gift that he would otherwise have received is subject to liability to the other for loss of the inheritance or gift.” The Superior Court explained, however, that Pennsylvania has not adopted the Restatement’s view to include inter vivos transfers. Rather, Pennsylvania law requires the plaintiff to plead that the decedent had sought to make changes in her will to plaintiff’s benefit, and that the defendant, through means of fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence thwarted the decedent’s intent.
The Superior Court held that because Fiedler did not allege that Betty expressed an intent to alter her will to benefit Fiedler, or that Attorney Spencer prevented the execution of such a will, Fiedler was unable to satisfy the elements required to prove intentional interference with an inheritance under Pennsylvania law.
J. Charles Gerbron, Jr., Esquire is a partner in MacElree Harvey’s Appellate Practice Group. Charlie can be reached at 610-840-0265 or [email protected].
