931 N.W.2d 510
S.D.2019Background
- Thomas Briggs sued his sister Judith in federal court alleging tortious interference with inheritance, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence; only the interference claim remained and the federal court certified whether South Dakota recognizes that tort.
- Thomas alleges both parents executed revocable trusts/wills leaving him and Judith equal shares; one parent later removed Thomas as a beneficiary after Judith became caregiver and allegedly isolated and controlled their mother.
- Thomas discovered the disinheritance after their mother died and timely probate challenges were dismissed (Briggs I) as time-barred under SDCL 55-4-57; he then pursued tort claims in federal court.
- The question certified: whether South Dakota recognizes tortious interference with inheritance or expectancy of inheritance.
- The Court reviewed national authority, South Dakota statutes (including SDCL 43-3-6 and SDCL 55-4-57), existing probate/trust remedies (e.g., undue influence, constructive or resulting trusts), and policy concerns about duplicative litigation and probate repose.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court declined to recognize the tort, holding existing statutory and equitable remedies are adequate and that expanding tort liability is unwarranted on the record presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SD should recognize tortious interference with inheritance | Thomas: adopt the tort to provide remedy where probate/trust remedies are inadequate (e.g., isolation, disparagement, wrongful inter vivos transfers) | Judith: tort is unnecessary; existing probate, statutory, and equitable remedies suffice; creating tort would duplicate and complicate probate law | Court: Declines to recognize the tort; existing remedies (probate causes, undue influence, constructive/implied trusts, statutory remedies) adequate |
| Whether inter vivos wrongful transfers require a tort remedy | Thomas: tort needed to punish/deter depletion of assets prior to death | Judith: constructive/implied trusts and statutory remedies (SDCL 55-1-8, 55-1-11) address wrongful inter vivos transfers | Court: Constructive trust and related remedies are adequate; no need to create new tort |
| Whether shortened trust challenge period (SDCL 55-4-57) justifies a tort | Thomas: short repose can preclude discovering interference; tort would allow suit against wrongdoer outside trust contest deadline | Judith: statute promotes expeditious administration; tort would undermine probate policy and possibly duplicate issues | Court: Not persuaded; petitioner made no showing here that repose prevented relief; legislative policy favors repose; decline to adopt tort |
| Whether precedent/Restatement support adopting tort in SD | Thomas: many jurisdictions and Restatement §774B support recognition | Judith: several state high courts have rejected the tort; adoption risks inconsistent/duplicative litigation | Court: Weighed authorities; concluded policy and SD law counsel against adopting the tort now |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinsel v. Lindsey, 526 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. 2017) (Texas Supreme Court declined to adopt tort, citing adequacy of other remedies)
- In re Estate of Ellis, 923 N.E.2d 237 (Ill. 2009) (discussed elements and limited plaintiffs who avoid probate remedies)
- Frohwein v. Haesemeyer, 264 N.W.2d 792 (Iowa 1978) (recognized tort as independent cause of action)
- DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1981) (adopted tort but required exhaustion of probate remedies)
- Jackson v. Kelly, 44 S.W.3d 328 (Ark. 2001) (declined to adopt tort; noted adequacy of other avenues and risk of duplicative litigation)
- In re Elizabeth A. Briggs Revocable Living Trust (Briggs I), 898 N.W.2d 465 (S.D. 2017) (prior SD decision: trust challenge time-barred; informs present posture)