## Facts

- The decedent executed a 1996 will naming her brother, Edward A. Schilling, as personal representative and sole beneficiary.
- The decedent later executed instruments naming Schilling as attorney-in-fact for financial and health-care decisions.
- After the decedent became seriously ill, Maria Herrera became involved in her care and later housed the decedent on Herrera’s property while being paid rent and caregiver compensation.
- While under Herrera’s care, the decedent executed a new 2003 will and power of attorney that allegedly transferred her estate to Herrera and gave Herrera control over the decedent’s finances.
- The amended complaint alleged Herrera used undue influence arising from a confidential or fiduciary relationship to procure the 2003 documents.
- The decedent died in August 2004, and Herrera probated the 2003 will.
- Schilling alleged Herrera concealed the death and the probate administration until after the creditor period expired and after Herrera sought discharge, preventing him from timely contesting the will.
- Schilling sued Herrera in tort for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance, alleging both undue influence and a fraudulent concealment scheme that blocked his participation in probate.

## Issues

1. Whether the amended complaint stated a cause of action for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance.
2. Whether the claim was barred because Schilling did not exhaust probate remedies before filing a separate tort action.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice and remanded.
- It held the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance.
- It held the action was not barred for failure to exhaust probate remedies because the complaint alleged extrinsic fraud that deprived Schilling of a meaningful opportunity to seek probate relief.

## Legal Principles

- Florida recognizes a tort claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance when a defendant intentionally and wrongfully interferes with a testator’s intent, causing diversion of an expected bequest.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor.
- The alleged interference is directed at the testator (e.g., undue influence over the testator), and a complaint may be sufficient if it pleads an expectancy, wrongful interference, causation, and damages.
- A probate-first (exhaustion) rule does not bar a separate tort action where the plaintiff plausibly alleges extrinsic fraud that prevented timely notice or participation in probate, making probate remedies practically unavailable.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the inheritance-expectancy interference claim to proceed because the complaint plausibly alleged undue influence over the decedent and extrinsic fraud that concealed the death and probate proceeding long enough to foreclose a meaningful probate contest, rendering an exhaustion bar inapplicable at the pleading stage.


Schilling v. Herrera, 952 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)