## Facts

- Elizabeth and Willard Briggs created revocable trusts and wills in 1995 that allegedly treated their children, Thomas and Judith, equally as beneficiaries.
- Willard died in 1997; Elizabeth became trustee of Willard’s trust.
- Thomas alleged that as Elizabeth’s health declined, Judith became her primary caretaker, formed a confidential relationship, isolated Elizabeth, and influenced her personal and financial decisions.
- Thomas alleged Elizabeth amended her trust in 2009 to remove him as a beneficiary and amended it again in 2012 to remove Thomas’s daughter as a beneficiary.
- Elizabeth died in July 2013; Thomas alleged he learned of her death about a month later through a letter from Elizabeth’s attorney that also identified statutory time limits for contesting trust amendments.
- Thomas filed a state-court petition challenging the amendments for lack of capacity and undue influence and alleging trustee misconduct; the petition was dismissed as untimely under SDCL 55-4-57(a), and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
- Thomas later sued Judith in federal court for tortious interference with inheritance/expectancy (and other claims that were dismissed), prompting the federal court to certify to the South Dakota Supreme Court whether the tort exists under South Dakota law.

## Issues

1. Whether South Dakota recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance or expectancy of inheritance.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota answered the certified question in the negative.
- The court declined to recognize a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance or expectancy of inheritance under South Dakota law.
- The court reasoned that South Dakota’s probate and trust statutes provide a comprehensive remedial scheme, including strict timing rules for challenges to testamentary and trust instruments.
- The court concluded that recognizing the tort would permit collateral, duplicative litigation and allow parties to bypass statutory limitations and procedures governing will and trust contests.

## Legal Principles

- South Dakota law does not recognize tortious interference with inheritance or expectancy of inheritance as an independent tort claim.
- Where probate and trust statutes provide defined remedies and limitations periods for contesting dispositions (including claims based on undue influence or lack of capacity), those mechanisms control and are not supplemented by a separate interference tort.
- Courts may decline to adopt a Restatement-recognized tort when adoption would conflict with legislative choices favoring finality and orderly estate administration.

## Conclusion

South Dakota does not permit a standalone tort claim for interference with an expected inheritance; challenges to alleged wrongdoing affecting testamentary or trust dispositions must proceed, if at all, through existing probate and trust remedies within the statutory time limits.


Briggs v. Briggs, 931 N.W.2d 510 (S.D. 2019)