## Facts

- Marc Christian MacGinnis lived for nearly ten years in a committed, unmarried relationship with Brent Beckwith; MacGinnis’s parents were deceased, and his only blood relative was his estranged sister, Susan Dahl.
- MacGinnis previously showed Beckwith an unsigned computer-stored will dividing the estate equally between Beckwith and Dahl.
- After MacGinnis was hospitalized, he asked Beckwith to print the computer will for execution; when it could not be found, MacGinnis asked Beckwith to prepare a new will leaving the estate 50/50 to Beckwith and Dahl.
- Beckwith prepared a will using an online form and emailed a copy to Dahl for review.
- Dahl allegedly told Beckwith not to have MacGinnis execute the will because she would have an attorney prepare an estate plan (including a trust) accomplishing the same 50/50 result within a few days; Beckwith alleged Dahl never intended to do so and made the statement to prevent execution of any instrument benefiting Beckwith.
- Dahl allegedly failed to tell Beckwith that a contemplated surgery was described to her as life-threatening; MacGinnis later died intestate after complications and withdrawal of life support authorized by Dahl.
- Dahl petitioned to administer the estate and, as intestate heir, stood to receive the entire estate; Beckwith’s requests for information were allegedly ignored for months, and Dahl eventually stated the estate would go solely to her.
- The probate court determined Beckwith lacked standing in probate, leaving him without a probate forum to assert any claimed expectancy.

## Issues

1. Whether California recognizes the tort of intentional interference with an expected inheritance (IIEI).
2. Whether the complaint stated facts sufficient to plead IIEI under the elements adopted by the court, including independently wrongful conduct directed at the testator and lack of an adequate probate remedy.
3. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded deceit by false promise (promissory fraud).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held California recognizes IIEI, subject to limiting elements designed to preserve the primacy of probate remedies.
- The court concluded the IIEI cause of action was not adequately pleaded because the complaint did not sufficiently allege independently wrongful conduct directed at MacGinnis (the testator), rather than only a false promise made to Beckwith.
- The court held the complaint adequately pleaded deceit by false promise.
- The court reversed the order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and the judgment of dismissal, and remanded with leave to amend the IIEI claim.

## Legal Principles

- California recognizes intentional interference with an expected inheritance as a tort claim.
- IIEI requires: (1) an economic expectancy of an inheritance or gift; (2) independently wrongful conduct, for reasons other than the interference itself, directed at the testator; (3) a reasonable certainty the expectancy would have been realized absent the misconduct; (4) no adequate probate remedy; and (5) resulting damages measured by the lost inheritance.
- IIEI is not a substitute for a will contest and is limited to situations where probate cannot provide an adequate remedy, including when wrongful conduct prevents execution of a will or trust and the claimant lacks probate standing.
- Promissory fraud (deceit by false promise) requires a promise made without intent to perform, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and resulting damages; reasonableness of reliance is commonly a fact question not resolved on demurrer when the alleged reliance is not facially irrational.

## Conclusion

The court recognized IIEI in California but required strict pleading, including independently wrongful conduct aimed at the testator and the absence of a meaningful probate remedy; it permitted amendment of the deficient IIEI allegations while allowing the promissory-fraud claim to proceed.


Beckwith v. Dahl, 205 Cal. App. 4th 1039 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)