On June 22, 2018, the Texas Supreme Court finally answered the question of whether Texas courts will recognize a claim that someone can interfere with the “inheritance rights” of another. The Court flatly said, “No.”
This had been an issue about which lower Texas courts had been divided. Some of the Courts of Appeals said yes, and some said no.
Underlying any claim that someone can be sued for interfering with inheritance rights is the implication that someone has a right to inherit. However, this directly contradicts one of the oldest principles in “common” law (the type of legal system England used which its American colonies continued to use after the US declared its independence), which is that a person has “freedom of testation,” that is, the right to dispose of his or her property however he or she wishes to whomever he or she might choose, without being compelled to give any portion to any particular person.
For married couples, common law also has a fundamental property concept that is somewhat in conflict with the freedom of testation concept, and that is what I call the “he who earns it, owns it” rule. Generally, the income earner owns 100% of his or her earnings, and the spouse owns 0%. In bygone ages, there were legal concepts intended to protect the spouse, such as dower and curtesy. Those were discriminatory on the basis of sex, so more modern laws in common law states allow a divorce court to grant to the non-income or lower income earner alimony and other property. At death, the surviving spouse might have the right to make an election to take a share of the decedent’s estate or to take whatever the decedent provides in his or her will.
Texas does not follow those rules, but has a community property system for a married couple, which came by way of civil law. Civil law originated in Rome, and is used today in many countries which were a part of Rome, such as Spain, France and Germany. When Spain colonized the Americas, their civil law followed their colonists. Part of that territory became Mexico which at one time included Texas.
Under the Texas community property system, all earnings are deemed owned 50-50 by both spouses. When a divorce occurs, the divorce judge can divide community property as is just and right, which might be 50-50 or might be a greater percentage for one or the other. At death, no such leeway is allowed. The surviving spouse keeps his or her 50%, and the decedent’s 50% passes either under the decedent’s will or under Texas intestacy laws, which might, or might not, provide anything for the surviving spouse. Overlaid on that are Texas homestead rights, and a statutory allowance which is a set aside out of a part of the decedent’s estate for some living expenses for the surviving spouse for a limited time.
For children, England long ago had rights of primogeniture, which gave the eldest son the estate of the father. Those laws were done away with long ago. Otherwise, laws allowing children and other descendants to inherit a share, even if a decedent’s will does not provide a share for them, are almost always limited to obvious omissions, such as the will that is made before one of more children are born. In such cases, unless that will specifically says that later-born or adopted children are excluded, those “pretermitted” children have a right to share with the other children. Otherwise, Texas, like many states, has laws which would say who is entitled to receive a decedent’s assets if the decedent either does not have a will, or whose will does not dispose of all of the decedent’s property.
As a result, Texas really has very limited rights for a surviving spouse (other that the homestead, surviving spouse’s allowance and the survivor’s 50% of community property) and almost no rights for the children.
With that background, it would seem out of place for Texas to have a law saying that someone could have a right to inherit. And, as a result, it would be odd to say that another person could interfere with a right to inherit which Texas does not recognize. Nevertheless, as noted above, several appellate courts in Texas had held that such a right to sue for interference with inheritance rights existed.
Last year, the Texas Supreme Court had before it another case which seemed to give the Court an opportunity to clarify the issue. But the Court disposed of the case without addressing the issue, saying only that Texas has never recognized a cause of action for interference with inheritance rights.
Not this time.
In the case of Archer v. Anderson, the Texas Supreme Court closed the door on the idea. As indicated at the outset, the Court said flatly that no such right exists.
Note: the Court pointed out that Texas law already recognizes a number of different ways that disgruntled heirs and others can seek to set aside wills, etc., for actions and events that would serve as the same basis for a claim of interference. In other words, if a defendant is shown to have taken advantage of a vulnerable person, such as a person struggling with dementia, or mental challenges, or who might be so dependent on the defendant that the person does not dare do anything contrary to what the defendant wants, any will or other change in how the vulnerable person’s assets are to be distributed might be set aside. If a defendant is shown to have used undue influence or coercion, or perhaps to have taken advantage of a vulnerable person’s mental incapacity, the will or change in beneficiary designation might be set aside. Sometimes defendants mislead the vulnerable person about critically important facts, such as the value of key assets, tricking the vulnerable person to give the more valuable assets to the defendant and less valuable assets to others. Again, the courts can rectify those wrongs. And all of those forms of relief can be used without the Supreme Court having to resort to the creation of a new law or cause of action for interference with inheritance rights.
Planning Note: What the law is, or isn’t, doesn’t stop someone with enough money to pay the filing fee from filing a lawsuit. If someone is making a will and knows that certain people in the family might cause trouble, there are ways to minimize the possibility of trouble. If a person thinks the estate plan that is to be implemented might face a potential challenge, then consultation with an experienced estate planning attorney would be warranted.
Of course, part of what eventually happens involves the different ways people envision what is fair. Some see fair as an equal split of assets among all children. But those who get an equal share often believe that things done they did during the life of the testator should entitle them to more, especially when they compare themselves with others getting an equal share. Sometimes, giving more to one seems fairer because of those sorts of reasons. And yet those receiving less might likewise view that as unfair, in spite of those very valid reasons. Perhaps it time to get everyone on the same page and have a common belief about what is fair.