Fiedler, E. v. Spencer, P.
2020 Pa. Super. 83
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Decedent Betty J. Fiedler originally executed a will and a power of attorney naming her daughters E. O’Rean Fiedler and Latisha Bitts as co-executrices and co-agents; later, as her health declined, various inter vivos gifts and transfers were made that reduced her probate estate.
- In 2006 Betty executed a new will and power of attorney naming Bitts sole agent and executrix; Fiedler alleges Spencer (the drafting attorney) and Bitts pressured Betty into improper inter vivos gifts benefiting Bitts and relatives.
- Fiedler sued Attorney Patti Spencer, Bitts, Adam Buckius and Kimberly Buckius in 2010 alleging, inter alia, tortious interference with inheritance, civil conspiracy, and entitlement to punitive damages; companion litigation addressed some transfers.
- Procedurally, the action was stayed, several defendants were dismissed with prejudice, the trial court sustained Spencer’s preliminary objections to earlier pleadings but permitted a third amended complaint; the trial court ultimately dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice and Fiedler appealed.
- The core legal dispute is whether Pennsylvania law recognizes a tortious-interference-with-inheritance claim based on depletion of the estate by inter vivos transfers (as articulated in Restatement § 774B), and whether conspiracy and punitive-damage claims survive when the underlying tort fails.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference with inheritance | Fiedler urged extension of the tort to inter vivos transfers that diminish an expected inheritance and alleged Spencer aided/devised transfers that thwarted her expected share | Spencer argued Pennsylvania law requires interference with testamentary changes (will), not mere lifetime transfers, and that precedent (Hollywood) bars such claims | Court held Pennsylvania law does not recognize interference claims based solely on inter vivos depletion; Fiedler failed to plead required elements and claim dismissed |
| Civil conspiracy | Fiedler alleged Spencer and Bitts combined maliciously to deprive her of her expected inheritance by unlawful transfers | Spencer argued conspiracy cannot stand because there is no underlying civil wrong to conspire to commit | Court held conspiracy failed because the underlying tort claim failed; conspiracy dismissed |
| Punitive damages | Fiedler claimed facts alleged outrageous conduct warranting punitive damages | Spencer argued punitive damages cannot be recovered absent a viable underlying cause of action | Court held punitive damages dismissed as derivative of failed substantive claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. DeHaven, 58 A. 141 (Pa. 1904) (recognizing cause of action for interference with expected inheritance)
- Hollywood v. First Nat. Bank of Palmerton, 859 A.2d 472 (Pa. Super. 2004) (refusing to extend Pennsylvania interference tort to inter vivos depletion where will-related interference is not shown)
- Cardenas v. Schober, 783 A.2d 317 (Pa. Super. 2001) (setting elements of tortious interference with inheritance)
- Goldstein v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 854 A.2d 585 (Pa. Super. 2004) (explaining civil-conspiracy elements and that conspiracy requires an underlying actionable wrong)
- Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., 555 A.2d 800 (Pa. 1989) (punitive damages are dependent on an underlying cause of action)