.webp)
.png)
One of the things we have not discussed yet in the area of Maryland estate law is tortious behavior with respect to wills and inheritances. When we think of torts, we tend to think of the most common types of tortious behavior – negligence for slip and falls, strict liability for dog bites, negligent misrepresentation in commercial contexts, and so forth. There are also torts which apply specifically in the context of inheritances: Maryland is among those states which recognize the tort of intentional interference with prospective gifts or inheritances. This tort is derived from the Third Restatement of Torts, Section 19.
The case of Barclay v. Castruccio (2020) is a relatively recent case which dealt directly with this tort of intentional interference. As we will see, this tort is construed narrowly, and so those who intend to invoke this tort need to firmly understand its contours otherwise they risk substantial waste of resources.
Let’s look at the details of this important case.
Factual Posture of the Case
The testator in this case, Dr. Peter Castruccio, left a portion of his sizable multi-million dollar estate to his wife, Sadie, but this portion was bequeathed on the condition that his wife draw up her own will prior to his death. If his wife failed to fulfill this condition prior to his death, then the portion of his estate which would have gone to his wife would instead transfer to his secretary (Barclay).
The wife failed to develop and finalize her own will prior to Dr. Castruccio’s passing in 2013. Consequently, the secretary, Barclay, inherited the portion of the estate which would have been inherited by the wife had she fulfilled the condition. Subsequent to the partial inheritance going to Barclay, the wife initiated multiple lawsuits against Barclay in an attempt to deprive her of her inheritance.
Barclay claimed that these post-death lawsuits fell under the tort of intentional interference with prospective gifts or inheritances. The wife, Sadie, argued that her suits fell outside of this tort because they were initiated post-death, as opposed to prior to death. Ordinarily, the tort of intentional interference had been limited to lawsuits initiated prior to the death of the testator.
Ruling & Post-Ruling Analysis
Barclay’s claim regarding the alleged tortious behavior of Dr. Castruccio’s wife was rejected by both the trial court and the intermediate appellate level court of Maryland. The case then proceeded to the Supreme Court of Maryland (at the time, the Maryland Court of Appeals), and the court ultimately affirmed these prior rulings, holding that no tort had been committed by Sadie. Although Sadie’s lawsuits may have indeed constituted wrongful interference had they been initiated prior to Dr. Castruccio’s passing, the fact that they were initiated post-death was controlling: the Supreme Court reiterated the narrow interpretation of intentional interference with inheritances, and firmly ruled that only pre-death lawsuits may make such claims.
Although the claimant was unsuccessful, this case is still highly significant because it establishes firmly that the tort of intentional or wrongful interference with prospective gifts or inheritances will be recognized (from the Third Restatement). Future claimants know that these actions are viable, but the timeline is controlling. Maryland has other doctrines available for those who wish to pursue claims arising from behaviors which occur post-death (of the testator).
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
Readers who want to know more about the tort of intentional interference with inheritance gifts, provisions relating to conditional inheritances, basic will drafting, or any other relevant estate planning matter, contact one of the estate planning attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
