Here's How to Allege Tortious Interference With an Inheritance, According to Superior Court
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, providing guidance into what is necessary for a viable claim for intentional interference with an inheritance, has affirmed a Lancaster County trial judge's dismissal of a woman's claims that her sister and her mother's lawyer tried to diminish her portion of her mother's estate.
April 23, 2020 at 02:00 PM
3 minute read
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, providing guidance into what is necessary for a viable claim for intentional interference with an inheritance, has affirmed a Lancaster County trial judge's dismissal of a woman's claims that her sister and her mother's lawyer tried to diminish her portion of her mother's estate.
A three-judge panel in Fiedler v. Spencer, consisting of Judges Anne Lazarus, Victor Stabile and Alice Dubow, rejected plaintiff E. O'Rean Fiedler's appeal in her case against Lancaster lawyer Patti Spencer and Fiedler's sister, Latisha Bitts.
According to the precedential April 2 opinion by Lazarus, Fiedler and Bitts were named co-executives with power of attorney of their mother Betty Fiedler's estate following their father's death in 2004. E. O'Rean Fiedler alleges that Betty Fiedler subsequently named Bitts as the sole executor and that the defendants pressured Betty Fiedler to give monetary gifts from the estate to deplete her estate, including giving Bitts' son, Adam Buckius, $330,000 to buy a house.
The trial judge dismissed E. O'Rean Fiedler's third amended complaint for failure to state a claim of tortious interference. Fiedler argued that the court should have regarded the gifts as an attempt to diminish her eventual inheritance.
Spencer countered that inter vivos gifts cannot be the basis of a tortious interference lawsuit in Pennsylvania.
"We agree with attorney Spencer that, even assuming as true the well-pleaded facts of Fiedler's third amended complaint and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, Fiedler cannot sustain an action for intentional interference with an inheritance under Pennsylvania law," Lazarus said. "Fiedler does 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."
Lazarus continued, "Rather, at most, the facts pleaded by Fiedler establish that attorney Spencer: (1) prepared a power of attorney for Betty naming Bitts as sole agent and (2) erroneously advised Bitts as to the propriety of certain inter vivos transfers that, when made by Bitts, resulted in a reduction in the value of Betty's probate estate. Accordingly, Fiedler is unable to satisfy the elements required to prove intentional interference with an inheritance under the law of this commonwealth."
The court also denied Fiedler's appeal for punitive damages.
"Here, Fiedler failed to plead a viable cause of action for either tortious interference with inheritance or civil conspiracy to commit that act. As one cannot recover punitive damages independent of an underlying cause of action, the trial court properly dismissed Fiedler's claim for punitive damages," Lazarus said.
The plaintiff is represented by Lancaster-based attorney Stephen Blair. Blair did not respond to a request for comment.
Spencer is represented by Edwin Schwartz of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin's Camp Hill office and did not respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHigh Verdicts and Venue Rule Land Pa. Courts on Top of 'Judicial Hellhole' List
5 minute readJudge Awards $200K in Attorney Fees Following $80K Employment Discrimination Award
4 minute readPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250