Barclay v. Castruccio
230 A.3d 80
Md.2020Background
- Dr. Peter A. Castruccio died in 2013; his 2010 will left specific bequests and made Darlene Barclay the residuary beneficiary because his widow, Sadie Castruccio, had not executed and filed a will; the residuary was initially worth about $6.7 million.
- After Peter’s death Sadie filed multiple lawsuits and other proceedings (caveat alleging fraud/undue influence, challenges to seven deed transfers, will construction actions, notary/negligence claim, attempts to remove the personal representative, challenges to fees, and a memorandum to the State’s Attorney), which Darlene alleges depleted estate assets by driving up attorneys’ fees.
- In February 2017 Darlene sued Sadie for intentional interference with an inheritance (plus malicious/abuse of process claims); the circuit court dismissed and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- Darlene asked the Court of Appeals to recognize the tort of intentional interference with an inheritance/gift and adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts § 19 formulation; Sadie argued the complaint lacked allegations of wrongful interference and that any interference occurred after the testator’s death.
- The Court of Appeals recognized the tort adopting Restatement (Third) § 19 but held Barclay’s complaint failed because the alleged wrongful acts occurred after the testator’s death (no interference with an ongoing/prospective relationship) and probate remedies could address bad‑faith litigation costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland should recognize a tort for intentional interference with an inheritance/gift | Barclay: adopt Restatement (Third) § 19 to allow recovery where an expectancy is wrongfully defeated | Castruccio: oppose or decline to engage; contend allegations do not show interference | Court: Yes — adopt Restatement (Third) § 19 as Maryland law |
| Whether interference may occur after the testator’s death (timing requirement) | Barclay: post‑death groundless litigation that depletes the estate is actionable interference | Castruccio: post‑death litigation does not interfere with the testator–legatee relationship; no causal interference with testamentary intent | Court: Interference must be with an ongoing or prospective relationship during the decedent’s life; post‑death groundless suits are insufficient |
| Whether the complaint pleaded an actionable independent wrongful act and whether probate remedies preclude tort relief | Barclay: alleged groundless suits and bad‑faith litigation depleted the estate and meet § 19 elements | Castruccio: allegations do not sufficiently plead bad faith or wrongful acts; probate and rules provide remedies for bad‑faith litigation | Court: Complaint was legally insufficient; dismissal affirmed; probate mechanisms (e.g., Md. Rules 1‑341/6‑141, probate authority) may provide remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Meadowcroft, 339 Md. 218 (1995) (considered application of Restatement (Second) § 774B to wills and declined to extend the tort on the pleadings)
- Geduldig v. Posner, 129 Md. App. 490 (1999) (Ct. Spec. App. examined recognition of inheritance‑interference tort and limited its application)
- Alexander & Alexander Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Assocs., Inc., 336 Md. 635 (1994) (defines “independently wrongful” conduct required for interference torts)
- K&K Mgmt., Inc. v. Lee, 316 Md. 137 (1989) (tortious interference principles for prospective contractual relations)
- Bohannon v. Wachovia Bank & Tr. Co., 188 S.E. 390 (N.C. 1936) (early recognition of inheritance‑interference tort and rationale for extension of interference doctrine)
- DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1981) (explains limitations of probate relief and supports tort where probate cannot remedy wrongful prevention of will formation)
- One Thousand Fleet Ltd. P’ship v. Guerriero, 346 Md. 29 (1997) (public‑policy caution against chilling legitimate suits by imposing retaliatory tort liability)