## Facts

- Christine Claveloux, the only child of Anna McGloin, alleged that Joseph Bacotti (McGloin’s nephew) inserted himself into McGloin’s affairs shortly after McGloin’s husband died in December 1996.
- Claveloux alleged McGloin’s physician found McGloin incompetent shortly after her husband’s death.
- Within weeks, McGloin allegedly closed existing bank accounts and moved funds into accounts jointly owned with Bacotti.
- Claveloux alleged McGloin’s longtime attorney refused to change her estate plan; Bacotti allegedly arranged for another attorney to do so.
- McGloin allegedly executed a new will and trust that made no provision for Claveloux and provided benefits to Bacotti (including tangible personal property and a trust naming Bacotti and the American Heart Association as equal beneficiaries).
- By mid-April 1997, a court issued emergency guardianship letters and later appointed a plenary guardian for McGloin’s person and property; her prognosis was poor.
- Claveloux sued Bacotti for intentional interference with her expectancy of inheritance, alleging intentional, malicious misconduct causing pecuniary loss and emotional distress.
- McGloin was still alive when the suit was filed and when the trial court dismissed the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida recognizes a cause of action for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance while the testator is still alive.
2. Whether allegations of the testator’s incompetency, undue influence, guardianship, and family relationships permit such a pre-death claim.

## Decision

- The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.
- The court held that no cause of action for intentional interference with an inheritance expectancy lies while the testator is living.
- The court rejected proposed distinctions based on incompetency/guardianship and on the parties’ familial relationships, treating prior precedent as controlling.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance requires: (1) an expectancy, (2) intentional interference through tortious conduct, (3) causation, and (4) damages.
- An inheritance “expectancy” is not a legally protected interest that supports this tort claim before the testator’s death because inheritance rights do not vest until death.
- Allegations that a living testator was incompetent, subject to undue influence, or placed under guardianship do not make the expectancy sufficiently definite to accrue the tort claim pre-death.

## Conclusion

The court held that a plaintiff cannot maintain an intentional-interference-with-inheritance-expectancy action in Florida while the testator is alive, even when the complaint alleges incompetency, undue influence, and transfers that would disinherit the plaintiff; the dismissal was affirmed.


Claveloux v. Bacotti, 778 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)