Court:
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007
Parties:
- Plaintiff: Edward A. Schilling (the decedent’s brother)
- Defendant: Maria Herrera (the decedent’s caretaker)
Citation:
Schilling v. Herrera, 952 So.2d 1231, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D882 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
The case of Schilling v. Herrera deals with a legal dispute surrounding the intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance. Edward A. Schilling, the decedent’s brother, brought an action against Maria Herrera, the decedent’s caretaker, accusing her of interfering with his expected inheritance through fraudulent means.
The decedent, Helen Schilling, had initially executed a will naming her brother as her sole beneficiary. However, during her time under Herrera’s care, the decedent was persuaded to change her will, which subsequently named Herrera as the sole beneficiary.
Schilling contended that Herrera’s actions not only influenced the decedent’s will but also deprived him of his opportunity to contest it in probate court. The issue raised was whether Schilling’s complaint sufficiently stated a claim for tortious interference with an expectancy of inheritance and whether it was barred by his failure to exhaust probate remedies.
Facts of Schilling v Herrera
Helen Schilling, the decedent, initially executed a will in which her brother, Edward Schilling, was named as her personal representative and sole beneficiary. In May 1997, she executed a durable power of attorney naming Edward as her attorney-in-fact.
This power of attorney granted him authority to make decisions on her behalf in various circumstances. In December 1999, due to her declining health and a diagnosis of renal disease, Helen Schilling executed a healthcare power of attorney naming her brother as her attorney-in-fact for healthcare decisions.
As her health worsened, Helen Schilling moved to the Claridge House, a rehabilitation facility. During her stay, she was cared for by Maria Herrera, who became more involved in assisting the decedent as her health deteriorated further. In the years that followed, Helen Schilling moved into Herrera’s home. She paid Herrera for caregiving services and rent for living with her.
In September 2003, and without the knowledge of Edward Schilling, Maria Herrera persuaded the decedent to execute a new power of attorney, naming Herrera as the attorney-in-fact for both health care and financial decisions. Furthermore, Helen Schilling executed a new will, naming Maria Herrera as the personal representative and sole beneficiary of her estate, effectively cutting out Edward Schilling. The decedent died on August 6, 2004, at Herrera’s home.
Edward Schilling, upon learning of his sister’s death, was informed that the new will had been executed, and he was not included as a beneficiary. Schilling alleged that Herrera’s actions prevented him from contesting the will and asserting his rights to inherit the estate. He was not made aware of his sister’s death until after the probate proceedings had concluded, and the will had already been accepted for probate.
Issue
The central issue in Schilling v. Herrera was whether the trial court erred in dismissing Schilling’s complaint for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance. Specifically, the questions at hand were:
- Did Schilling’s complaint fail to state a cause of action for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance?
- Was Schilling barred from filing the action due to his failure to exhaust probate remedies?
Schilling v Herrera Judgment
In analyzing Schilling v. Herrera, the court reviewed the lower trial court’s decision to dismiss Schilling’s complaint. The trial court had found that Schilling’s claim failed to state a cause of action and that he was barred from filing due to his failure to exhaust probate remedies. The appellate court, however, found that Schilling’s complaint sufficiently alleged the necessary elements to proceed with a claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance.
The appellate court emphasized that the tort of intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance does not require a breach of a legal duty owed to the plaintiff. Rather, it focuses on whether the defendant’s conduct interfered with the testator’s rights to execute a will that accurately reflects their intentions. In this case, the court concluded that Maria Herrera’s conduct in persuading the decedent to change her will and naming Herrera as the beneficiary, while Schilling was excluded, constituted interference with Schilling’s expectancy.
The court also addressed the argument that Schilling could have contested the new will in probate court. The appellate court distinguished this case from prior rulings, noting that Schilling’s claim was not merely about the validity of the will but about the fraudulent conduct that prevented him from challenging the will in probate. Schilling had not been informed of his sister’s death until after the probate proceedings were completed, and thus, he had no opportunity to contest the will or assert his rights. The fraudulent conduct of Herrera effectively deprived Schilling of his chance to contest the will, making the interference with his expectancy actionable.
Furthermore, the appellate court recognized that while probate offers a legal remedy for challenging the validity of a will, it does not necessarily preclude an action for tortious interference with an expectancy of inheritance. Schilling was not attempting to contest the validity of the will but to seek damages for the tortious interference caused by Herrera’s fraudulent actions.
Conclusion
The District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Schilling’s complaint. The appellate court held that Schilling’s complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance and was not barred by his failure to exhaust probate remedies. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Schilling to pursue his claim against Herrera.
In reaching its decision, the appellate court clarified that a claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance does not require the plaintiff to first exhaust probate remedies if the interference was fraudulent and prevented the plaintiff from challenging the will in probate court. The court also emphasized that this claim is a tort action, distinct from a will contest, and can proceed even if the plaintiff had the option to contest the will through probate.
Synopsis
Schilling v. Herrera is a significant case that clarifies the elements of a claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance and the circumstances under which such a claim can proceed. The case highlights the potential for tort claims when a party’s expectancy of inheritance is interfered with by wrongful conduct, such as fraud or undue influence. It also underscores that a plaintiff may pursue a tort action even if probate remedies are available, especially when the interference prevents the plaintiff from exercising their rights in probate court.
Who Won?
In the appeal, Edward A. Schilling prevailed. The court found that his complaint adequately stated a claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance and was not barred by the failure to exhaust probate remedies. The case was remanded for further proceedings, providing Schilling with the opportunity to seek damages for the interference with his inheritance expectancy caused by Herrera’s actions.