Richard T. Archer, David B. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Ted Anderson
556 S.W.3d 228
Tex.2018Background
- Jack Archer (elderly) executed a 1991 will leaving the bulk of his estate to family (Archers); that will was the last valid expression of his testamentary intent.
- Jack suffered a stroke and had diminished capacity; T. Mark Anderson (long-time friend) influenced Jack’s post-stroke decisions concerning his assets.
- Archers sued alleging tortious intentional interference with their expectancy of inheritance (among other remedies pursued); they obtained relief through other means in this case.
- The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals judgment for the Archers but addressed whether to recognize the tort of intentional interference with inheritance statewide.
- Justice Phil Johnson concurred in the judgment but dissented from the Court’s decision to foreclose the tort entirely, arguing it should be left open for cases where no other remedy exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas should recognize a tort for intentional interference with an expected inheritance | Archers: such a tort protects expectancies when wrongful conduct (fraud/undue influence) diverts assets and other remedies may be inadequate | Anderson: existing probate and equitable remedies suffice; recognizing the tort would conflict with probate law and create uncertainty | Court: refused to recognize the tort as a general cause of action; Justice Johnson would reserve the question and not foreclose it entirely |
| Whether existing remedies (constructive trust, restitution, probate remedies) were adequate here | Archers: in some factual scenarios those remedies may be inadequate (e.g., assets dissipated, nonprobate transfers, concealed death) | Anderson: statutory probate law and equitable remedies are adequate; courts can handle gaps via probate/statutory reform | Held: In this case remedies were adequate; constructive trust and other relief sufficed, so no need to recognize new tort here |
| Whether recognizing the tort would conflict with Texas probate law and testamentary freedom | Anderson: a new tort could intrude on donor’s right to dispose of property and conflict with probate scheme | Archers/Johnson: properly cabined tort would augment, not conflict with, probate protections for vulnerable testators | Held: Court concluded potential conflicts and adequacy of existing law counsel against adopting the tort now; concurrence dissented on this point |
| Whether Kinsel v. Lindsey controls approach to novel tort recognition | Archers: Kinsel suggested reserving recognition unless necessary; Court should maintain flexibility | Anderson: Kinsel supports declining to expand tort law when equitable remedies suffice | Held: Court followed Kinsel’s reasoning to deny recognition here; Justice Johnson would have stopped short of foreclosing future recognition |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinsel v. Lindsey, 526 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. 2017) (addressed whether to recognize intentional interference with inheritance; emphasized adequacy of other remedies)
- KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. 2015) (standards and limits for imposing constructive trusts)
- Meadows v. Bierschwale, 516 S.W.2d 125 (Tex. 1974) (constructive trust principles and tracing proceeds)
- Valdez v. Ramirez, 574 S.W.2d 748 (Tex. 1978) (discussing nonprobate asset transfers in estate contexts)
- Pope v. Garrett, 211 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1948) (equity’s broad use of constructive trusts)
- Doughty v. Morris, 871 P.2d 380 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994) (recognizing tortious interference with expected inheritance and proposing workable elements)
- DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1981) (tort for wrongful interference with testamentary expectancy and relation to probate remedies)
- In re Estate of Valdez, 406 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (court of appeals consideration of inheritance-interference claims)
- Magana v. Citibank, N.A., 454 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (court of appeals recognizing related claims)
- Stern v. Marshall, 471 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (court of appeals discussion of interference-with-inheritance theories)