Jackson Walker, LLP v. Kinsel, 518 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2015), aff'd sub nom, Kinsel v. Lindsey, 526 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. 2017).
A jury found that Defendants were liable for
tortiously interfering with their inheritance rights.
The trial court then awarded damages as well as other remedies in an
attempt to undo the interference. Defendants appealed
not on the ground that their conduct was not tortious, but rather that
the tort is not recognized as a cause of action.
The appellate court agreed and reversed.
The court based its holding on the fact that neither the Supreme
Court of Texas nor the Fort Worth Court of Appeals have expressly
recognized the tort. [The case was transferred from
the Fort Worth Court to the Amarillo Court by the Supreme Court of Texas
as part of its docket equalization efforts.]
The strong dissent points out that six of the Texas
intermediate appellate courts have recognized the tort including the
Amarillo court. In addition, six other courts,
including the Fort Worth court, have discussed the tort without
rejecting it.
Note: Surprisingly,
neither opinion cited to Estates Code § 54.001 [formerly Probate Code
§ 10C] which, in my opinion, impliedly provides legislative recognition
of the tort. In relevant part, this section states,
“The filing or contesting in probate court of a pleading relating to a
decedents’ estate does not constitute tortious interference with
inheritance of the estate.” Why would the legislature
say something cannot be tortious interference if Texas does not
recognize the tort in the first place?
Moral: At the moment, individuals residing
in the areas encompassed by the Fort Worth Court of Appeals may
tortiously interfere with inheritance rights without fear of liability
for so doing if they are lucky enough to have the case transferred to
the Amarillo court.