Rice v. Rice
533 S.W.3d 58
Tex. App.2017Background
- Peggy Rice, widow of Raymond, applied to probate his will; Raymond’s daughters Emily and Olivia contested the will and also pleaded tortious interference with their inheritance rights.
- Peggy specially excepted to that pleading, arguing Texas does not recognize a tort for interference with inheritance; the trial court sustained the special exception and dismissed that claim.
- At trial on the will contest, a jury found Raymond lacked testamentary capacity and that the will was the product of undue influence; the trial court declared the will invalid (Raymond died intestate).
- Emily and Olivia appealed the dismissal of their interference-with-inheritance claim; after briefing the Texas Supreme Court decided Kinsel v. Lindsey, which declined to recognize a standalone tort for interference with inheritance and treated its viability as an open question.
- Peggy moved to dismiss the appeal as moot based on Kinsel; the court denied the motion, holding the controversy remained live because an appellate ruling could affect the parties’ rights.
- The appellate court concluded it would not recognize a new tort here (the parties had adequate remedies via will-contest/constructive trust; plaintiffs mainly sought exemplary damages), and affirmed the trial court’s judgment as no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas recognizes a tort for tortious interference with inheritance | Emily & Olivia: such a cause of action exists and trial court should not have dismissed it | Peggy: Texas has not recognized the tort; Kinsel confirms viability is at least unsettled and courts should not create the cause of action | Court: Declined to recognize a new cause of action on these facts; affirmed dismissal (harmless error in light of Kinsel and available remedies) |
| Whether the appeal is moot after Kinsel | Emily & Olivia: appeal remains live because appellate ruling can affect rights | Peggy: Kinsel forecloses the claim, so appeal is moot | Court: Appeal is not moot; live controversy exists, so appeal proceeds; nonetheless claim fails on the merits/was properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinsel v. Lindsey, 526 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. 2017) (declined to recognize tortious interference with inheritance; treated viability as open and applied factors for recognizing new torts)
- Brandes v. Rice Trust, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (earlier intermediate appellate recognition of interference-with-inheritance claim)
- King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987) (earlier appellate decision relied upon to recognize the tort)
- Pope v. Garrett, 211 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1948) (imposed constructive trust in equity; did not create a standalone tort)
- Ritchie v. Rupe, 443 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. 2014) (factors and framework referenced for deciding whether to recognize new causes of action)