Breaking new legal ground in Arizona, a Phoenix judge has ruled that a man who was expecting to inherit 50 percent of a house from his 78-year-old mother can sue his siblings for interfering with his expected inheritance while she is still alive.

Robert Jaeger's case is the first in which an Arizona judge has recognized the tort of intentional interference with a prospective inheritance. Courts in only two other states -– Maine and Florida –- have allowed claims involving the will of a living estate owner.

Jaeger sued a sister, a half-sister and two half-brothers in July, alleging his mother, Patricia English, who owns a $297,000 home in Scottsdale, Ariz., had amended her will because of their “unlawful interference.” He is seeking $800,000 in damages on the interference claim and another $385,000 for conversion of his personal belongings.

“[H]aving read the out-of-state cases provided to the Court by Plaintiff and having researched the issue, the Court is convinced that a cause of action in tort for intentional interference with a prospective inheritance may be recognized in Arizona,” Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bethany G. Hicks said in a recent order.

“While the legislative branch may not have included this cause of action in the Probate Code,” she continued, “that fact does not mean that the cause of action was considered and rejected by the legislature.”

The defendants argued in a motion for summary judgment that Jaeger should not be allowed to proceed with his interference claim when he can challenge the will under the Probate Code after his mother's death if he believes he was wrongfully deprived of his inheritance.

English, a widow, had eight children from three marriages. According to Jaeger's complaint, he became her sole caregiver in 2004 and she drew up a beneficiary deed in November 2005 that left half of her home to him and the other half to her other children.

“[P]laintiff's mother said that she would leave the Residence to whichever of her children took care of her,” the suit says. Jaeger had been living with her in the home.

But in May 2007, English amended the deed after the defendants allegedly “caused plaintiff to depart the Residence with only the clothes on his back, the shoes on his feet and some papers.” The new deed excludes Jaeger from any share of the home and a new will excludes him from any share of the remainder of the estate.

In a brief opposing summary judgment, Jaeger attorney Harold J. Bliss cited the Maine and Florida cases -- Harmon v. Harmon, 404 A.2d 1020 (1979), and Carlton v. Carlton, 575 So.2d 239 (1991) -- in which courts held that a claim for interference with an expected gift or inheritance can be brought while the estate owner is still living.

“It is understandable that there are few cases dealing with this specific question, as usually the interference will not be known by the victim until the death of the donor or testator/testatrix,” he said. “But in some instances such as here, the victim knows and has alleged the interference, both as to a beneficiary deed and as to the plaintiff's and the defendants' mother's will.”

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was “unpersuaded” by Harmon and refused to recognize a similar claim, finding “[t]here are sufficient remedies under current law” for a prospective beneficiary, including filing a petition to appoint a guardian for the estate owner. Labonte v. Giordano, 687 N.E.2d 1253 (1997).

Jaeger's mother, for one, is not exactly thrilled with his suit. “It's ridiculous and unnecessary and inexcusable,” she told the Arizona Republic. “I'm not dead yet, and I don't plan on croaking soon ... I intend to give my family hell.”

By Matthew Heller
1/31/08