MBE Rules · Wills, Trusts & Estates

Interference with Inheritance

IIEI (Beckwith v. Dahl)

The rule

California recognizes intentional interference with expected inheritance where an independent tort directed at the testator deprived the plaintiff of an expectancy and probate remedies are inadequate.

In plain English

In California, if someone intentionally harms a testator (the person making a will) in a way that prevents an heir from receiving their expected inheritance, that heir can sue for damages. This is only applicable if the harm was a direct action against the testator and if the usual probate remedies won't suffice to address the loss.

Worked example

Alice was set to inherit her grandmother's estate, but her cousin Bob forged a document to change the will in his favor. Alice can sue Bob for intentional interference with her expected inheritance because Bob's actions directly harmed her and probate won't adequately remedy her loss. As a result, Alice successfully recovers damages from Bob.

Memory hook

Don't let others steal your inheritance; protect your rights against interference!

The trap

Exams may present scenarios where students confuse interference with inheritance with other torts, leading them to overlook the specific requirement of intentionality and direct harm to the testator.

How examiners test it

Questions often involve fact patterns where one party's actions directly affect another's inheritance, prompting candidates to identify whether the interference was intentional and if probate remedies are insufficient.

Drill this rule until it can't fail you.

Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.