2019 S.D. 37
S.D.2019Background
- Thomas Briggs alleges his parents created wills/trusts favoring him equally with his sister Judith; Thomas claims Judith received inter vivos gifts and later isolated their mother, Elizabeth, who amended trusts removing Thomas as beneficiary and died in 2013.
- Thomas learned of the disinheritance only after receiving a lawyer’s letter and filed a timely trust-contest petition in state court more than 18 months after death; the circuit court dismissed the petition as time barred under SDCL 55-4-57(a), and this Court affirmed in Briggs I, finding lack of in personam jurisdiction over Judith in her individual capacity.
- Thomas then sued Judith in federal court alleging, among other claims, tortious interference with inheritance/expectancy of inheritance; the federal court certified to the South Dakota Supreme Court the question whether South Dakota recognizes that tort.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed authorities from other state high courts (some adopting, some rejecting, and some limiting the tort), relevant South Dakota statutes (including SDCL 43-3-6 and SDCL 55-4-57) and existing probate/trust remedies such as constructive and implied trusts.
- The Court considered policy arguments (duplication of probate litigation, adequacy of existing remedies, legislative repose for trusts) and concluded the record did not show a need to expand tort liability in South Dakota.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether South Dakota recognizes tortious interference with inheritance/expectancy | Thomas: adopt the tort to provide redress for wrongful third-party acts (fraud, undue influence, isolation, disparagement, wrongful inter vivos transfers) that probate remedies may not reach | Judith: existing probate, statutory, and equitable remedies (will/trust contests, constructive/implied trust, SDCL causes) suffice; tort would duplicate/prolong litigation | Court: Declines to recognize the tort in South Dakota; existing remedies adequate and expansion of tort law unwarranted |
| Whether inter vivos transfers influenced by wrongful conduct require a new tort remedy | Thomas: tort needed to deter/punish wrongful depletion of assets before death | Judith: constructive and implied trusts and statutory remedies address wrongful transfers | Court: existing constructive/constructive-trust remedies adequate; no compelling reason to adopt new tort |
| Whether short repose period for contesting trusts (SDCL 55-4-57) warrants a tort remedy | Thomas: repose may bar discovery-based challenges, so tort would preserve remedy against wrongdoer | Judith: tort would conflict with legislative policy favoring expeditious trust administration | Court: Legislature’s repose is deliberate public policy; no showing that repose rendered Thomas without remedy here; tort not justified on that basis |
| Whether South Dakota should follow Restatement/other states adopting tort | Thomas: cites jurisdictions and Restatement recognizing the tort | Judith: cites jurisdictions declining to adopt; warns of duplication and probate collateral attacks | Court: comparative authority mixed; Court not persuaded to expand tort law given South Dakota statutes/cases and alternative remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Langley, 85 S.E. 1050 (Ga. 1915) (early recognition of interference-with-inheritance concept)
- Frohwein v. Haesemeyer, 264 N.W.2d 792 (Iowa 1978) (treats tort as independent cause of action)
- Estate of Ellis, 923 N.E.2d 237 (Ill. 2009) (sets elements for the tort and limits recovery when probate remedies were available)
- Kinsel v. Lindsey, 526 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. 2017) (Texas Supreme Court declined to adopt tort given adequacy of other remedies)
- DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1981) (adopted tort but required exhaustion of probate remedies first)
- Economopoulos v. Kolaitis, 528 S.E.2d 714 (Va. 2000) (refused to adopt tort; emphasizes testator freedom of disposition)
- In re Elizabeth A. Briggs Revocable Living Trust, 898 N.W.2d 465 (S.D. 2017) (Briggs I) (South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Thomas’s trust challenge as time barred and noted lack of in personam jurisdiction over Judith)