## Facts

- Three siblings sued their sister, alleging she intentionally interfered with their expected inheritances from their parents.
- The parents allegedly expressed a recurring estate plan: one sibling would receive a New Jersey home; the Pennsylvania home would be shared by three children; remaining assets would be divided equally among those three.
- The complaint alleged that in March 2000 the parents lacked testamentary capacity and were subject to the sister’s undue influence.
- The sister allegedly procured a durable power of attorney granting her control over the parents’ property during their lifetimes.
- The sister allegedly procured wills leaving the vast majority of the parents’ property to her and used the power of attorney and related conduct to divert assets to herself during the parents’ lifetimes.
- The mother died in 2001 and the father in 2002.
- The parents’ estates were never probated and allegedly had virtually no assets by the time suit was filed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the sister on the theory that probate provided an adequate remedy.

## Issues

1. Whether a claim for tortious interference with an expected inheritance is barred when probate is deemed an adequate remedy, despite allegations that the estates were depleted before death, were never probated, and had virtually no assets.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trial court erred in concluding that a probate proceeding would provide an adequate remedy on these facts.
- The court distinguished precedent barring such tort claims where an active probate administration existed and the tort action would disrupt orderly estate administration.

## Legal Principles

- A tort claim for intentional interference with an expected inheritance is generally precluded if an adequate probate remedy exists and was available to address the alleged wrongdoing.
- The availability of probate-based relief is determinative; preclusion is not absolute where probate cannot provide meaningful relief.
- Where no probate administration is pending, no personal representative is pursuing claims, and the estate has virtually no assets because assets were allegedly diverted during the decedent’s lifetime, probate may be an inadequate remedy, permitting the tort action to proceed.
- Concerns about collateral attacks on probate judgments and interference with estate administration carry less force when there is no ongoing probate and the action will not fragment or disrupt distribution to other beneficiaries.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the siblings’ tortious-interference action to go forward because, given the alleged lifetime diversion of assets and the absence of a probated estate with distributable property, probate did not provide an adequate remedy, making summary judgment improper.


Neumann v. Wordock, 873 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)