Anderson v. Archer
490 S.W.3d 175
Tex. App.2016Background
- The Archers alleged Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from their uncle Jack Archer, and a jury awarded them $2,564,899.90 in damages against the Andersons.
- The trial court’s judgment was appealed and the Archers cross-appealed seeking additional damages.
- The dispositive issue is whether Texas recognizes a common-law tort of tortious interference with inheritance.
- The court concludes Texas does not recognize such a cause of action and reverses to render judgment for the Andersons.
- The discussion references King v. Acker and related cases as historically cited to support recognition of the tort, but the court rejects that line of authority.
- Estates Code § 54.001 is viewed as shielding probate participants from tortious-interference claims, not affirmatively recognizing such a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a recognized Texas tort of tortious interference with inheritance? | Archers contend Texas recognizes the tort. | Andersons argue there is no such recognized tort. | No recognized tort; Archers take nothing. |
| Does Pope v. Garrett establish damages for tortious interference with inheritance? | Archers rely on Pope for potential damages framework. | Andersons contend Pope does not create a damages-action tort here. | Pope does not validate a damages claim for tortious interference with inheritance. |
| Does Estates Code § 54.001 create a right to damages for tortious interference with inheritance? | Archers may rely on § 54.001 as legislative support for the claim. | § 54.001 only shields probate participants and does not recognize a claim. | § 54.001 does not recognize a standalone tort. |
| Is the Archers' proposed tort a subset of intentional interference with contract or prospective business relationship? | Archers assert it falls under a broader tort doctrine. | Andersons argue inheritance is an expectancy, not a contract-based interest. | Not recognized as an extension of the contract interference tort. |
| Should the court recognize a new cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance? | Archers urge judicial creation of the tort. | Court should not create a new shortcut to fee recovery or expand liability. | Court declines to recognize or create the tort. |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987) (recognized discussion of possible inheritance-interference implications but not a stated cause of action)
- Neill v. Yett, 746 S.W.2d 32 (Tex.App.—Austin 1988) (not a recognition of a damages tort for interference with inheritance; discusses inheritance expectancy and limitations)
- Pope v. Garrett, 211 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1948) (constructive trust context; not an action at law for damages)
- In re Estate of Valdez, 406 S.W.3d 228 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2013) (reliance on King v. Acker regarding inheritance-interference claim)
- In re Estate of Russell, 311 S.W.3d 528 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2009) (same theme on inheritance-interference discussions)
- Tucker v. Thomas, 419 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. 2013) (American Rule on attorney-fee recovery in litigation)
- Burroughs v. APS Int’l, Ltd., 93 S.W.3d 155 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (limits on expanding common-law duties; referenced for jurisdictional posture)
- King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987) (rested on Restatement § 774B formulation of tortitious interference with inheritance)