## Facts

- In 1979, Helen Peralta executed a will leaving her estate equally to her three children: Nora Peralta, Manford Peralta, and Ruby Archuleta.
- At the time of the 1979 will, Nora lived with Helen and provided care for her.
- In December 1994, Manford moved Helen to live with him and/or Ruby.
- In March 1995, Helen’s bank accounts were changed to payable-on-death accounts for the benefit of Manford and Ruby.
- After the account changes, Helen executed a codicil to her 1979 will that excluded Nora and divided Helen’s estate between Manford and Ruby.
- In January 1996, Helen executed a quitclaim deed transferring her remaining real estate to Manford, Ruby, and their spouses.
- Nora alleged that Manford and Ruby told Helen that Nora refused to care for her, and that they concealed the bank and property transfers from Nora for several years.
- Helen died in 1999 at age 94, and her estate was not probated.
- Five months after Helen’s death, Nora filed a complaint in district court (not probate) seeking rescission, restitution, recovery of the transferred assets, and imposition of a trust, alleging that Manford and Ruby procured the transfers and codicil through undue influence.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact on undue influence and that Nora’s claim was procedurally improper because she did not name the estate and did not bring the matter in probate.
- The district court granted summary judgment on the ground that Nora failed to name the estate and that her claim was not made in connection with probate, and Nora appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a disappointed beneficiary may bring a civil action for intentional (tortious) interference with an inheritance expectancy based on alleged undue influence and related misconduct, rather than being limited to probate proceedings on behalf of the estate.
2. Whether probate is an adequate or exclusive remedy when alleged inter vivos transfers and beneficiary designations depleted the estate so that a probate proceeding would provide no meaningful relief.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that a civil tort action for intentional interference with inheritance may be available in New Mexico and is not barred merely because the plaintiff did not open probate or name the estate.
- The court reasoned that when wrongful conduct allegedly diverts property outside the estate before death—leaving little or nothing to administer—probate may not supply an adequate remedy.
- The court’s ruling addressed the procedural basis for dismissal; it did not finally decide whether Manford and Ruby in fact exercised undue influence.

## Legal Principles

- A claim for intentional (tortious) interference with an inheritance expectancy may be recognized when a defendant’s wrongful conduct (such as undue influence, fraud, or similar wrongdoing) prevents the plaintiff from receiving an expected inheritance.
- Probate is not necessarily the exclusive forum for disputes tied to testamentary expectations, particularly when the challenged conduct involves inter vivos transfers or nonprobate arrangements that remove assets from the estate.
- When the estate has been depleted by alleged wrongful transfers before death, requiring a plaintiff to proceed only through probate can leave the plaintiff without an effective remedy; a civil action against the alleged wrongdoers may proceed.
- A plaintiff may seek remedies such as restitution, recovery of wrongfully obtained property, and equitable relief (including a trust remedy) in a civil action aimed at restoring the value of the expectancy.

## Conclusion

Peralta v. Peralta reversed a summary judgment that required a disinherited child to proceed only through probate and to sue on behalf of the estate, holding that New Mexico may permit a civil tort claim for intentional interference with an inheritance expectancy when alleged undue influence and concealed inter vivos transfers shifted assets outside probate and left the estate without a practical probate remedy.


Peralta v. Peralta, 131 P.3d 81 (2005)