California Legal Brief

The Rule of Halperin v. Halperin is that a plaintiff cannot maintain a civil tort claim for intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI) when she has an adequate remedy available in probate, under circumstances where the plaintiff has standing in probate and the ability to seek relief based on the same factual allegations underlying the tort claim.

Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint after sustaining demurrer without leave to amend in Superior Court, Alameda County.

Defendant Appellant was David G. Halperin — the son and trust beneficiary who allegedly interfered with his father's efforts to amend the trust to equalize distributions among his three children.

Plaintiff Respondent was Susan L. Halperin — the daughter and trust beneficiary who alleged her brothers interfered with their father Warren's plan to amend his trust to give her an equal share.

The suit sounded in intentional interference with expected inheritance and elder financial abuse. [No cross-claims identified.]

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Susan learned in January 2021 that Warren's 2014 trust gave her brothers more favorable terms (about $1 million more each) than her share. Warren told Susan he planned to amend the trust to equalize distributions, having discussed this with attorney Paula Weaver as early as April 2019. Susan alleged David and Michael interfered through various conduct including: involvement in conversations with the attorney to interfere with Warren's instructions, slandering Susan to Warren, falsely accusing Susan of theft and filing false police reports, attempting bribery and making threats, demanding Warren be evaluated for capacity, threatening Warren's friends to deter them from helping, and placing Warren in assisted living while limiting Susan's communications with him.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court sustained David's demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that Susan could not maintain an IIEI claim because she had not shown she lacked an adequate remedy in probate.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether a plaintiff can maintain a tort claim for intentional interference with expected inheritance when she has standing and adequate remedies available in probate.

The Appellate Court held that Susan cannot maintain her IIEI tort claim because she had an adequate remedy in probate, given her standing as Warren's child and beneficiary and her ability to seek relief through Probate Code section 17200 and related provisions, as demonstrated by her 2022 probate petition that contained the same factual allegations.

The case is inapplicable when the plaintiff lacks standing in probate or has been effectively deprived of access to the probate system, as occurred in Beckwith v. Dahl where the plaintiff had no intestate rights or creditor status.

The case leaves open the precise catalog of remedies and procedural options available in probate, and does not address other potential grounds for dismissing IIEI claims such as statute of limitations or sufficiency of pleading as to tort elements.