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. Jackson
Walker v. Kinsel, No. 07-13-00130-CV, 2015 WL 2085220 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo, Apr. 10, 2015). 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.]
A strong dissent pointed 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.
The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed. The court
reviewed the prior cases and explained that they did not show that the
court had previously recognized the tort. Admitting some lower courts
have recognized the tort, the court declined to recognize the tort
because the plaintiffs already had an adequate remedy, a constructive
trust imposed on the disputed inheritance, and thus the court was “not
persuaded to consider it here.” (emphasis added). Accordingly,
the issue remains open.
Moral: Litigators in Texas will need to
wait for another case to reach the Supreme Court of Texas to ascertain
whether tortious interference with inheritance rights is a viable cause
of action.