## Facts

- Louise Hatten died on August 17, 2001, leaving an estate valued at roughly $700,000 and seven siblings.
- Antoinette Tartaglia testified that in 1996–1997 Louise showed her an executed will leaving the estate primarily to Tartaglia, Jeanette Kidd, Anthony Hatten, and another sister, while leaving $1 to brothers Louis and George and nothing to a nephew.
- Kidd and Anthony testified that, shortly before Louise’s death, Louise described her will’s terms consistently with what Tartaglia had read.
- After Louise’s death, no original will could be located.
- The day after Louise died, Tartaglia and others went to Louise’s home; Tartaglia testified Louis searched through drawers, closets, and belongings, collected Louise’s personal papers, and took them.
- After Louis removed the papers, the will could not be found despite later efforts.
- Louis petitioned to administer the estate as intestate, which would give each sibling an equal share; the plaintiffs alleged they would receive less than under the will.
- Tartaglia, Kidd, and Anthony sued Louis in a separate civil action for tortious interference with a testamentary expectancy, alleging he destroyed the will to benefit from intestacy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Louis.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on a claim for tortious interference with a testamentary expectancy when circumstantial evidence supported an inference that the defendant removed and destroyed a will that favored the plaintiffs.

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether Louis wrongfully interfered by destroying the will.
- The plaintiffs’ testimony was sufficient to support a reasonable inference that a will existed with terms benefiting them and that Louis’s conduct could have caused its disappearance.

## Legal Principles

- On review of summary judgment, the nonmovant’s evidence is taken as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the nonmovant’s favor.
- Summary judgment is improper if the record permits competing reasonable inferences on material facts, including intent and causation.
- A claim for interference with a testamentary expectancy may proceed where evidence supports (a) an identifiable expected inheritance based on a decedent’s testamentary plan and (b) intentional wrongful conduct that prevents the expectancy from being realized, causing damages.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiffs presented evidence that an executed will existed, that it disinherited Louis, that Louis took control of the decedent’s papers immediately after death, and that the will then could not be found, the appellate court held a fact-finder must resolve the disputed inferences and reversed the summary judgment.


Tartaglia v. Hatten (In re Estate of Hatten), 880 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)