Beneficiary who accepted inheritance under Will could not bring action for tortious interference

In Chambers v. Edwards, 365 Ga. App. 482 (2022), William Chambers sued his sister, Kathy Edwards, alleging tortious interference with inheritance. The trial court granted Edwards’ motion to dismiss (converted to a motion for summary judgment when evidence not in the pleadings was considered).

The parties’ father died in 2011, leaving everything to their mother. Edwards was a caregiver for her mother until she died in 2019. The mother’s 2011 Will was offered and admitted for probate. Edwards distributed the estate and filed a petition for discharge. At that point, Chambers filed a caveat and counterclaim which the probate court dismissed as untimely. The probate court granted Edwards’ petition for discharge.

Six months later, Chambers sued Edwards in Superior Court alleging tortious interference with inheritance. Chambers claimed his parents intended for the home to be sold and the proceeds distributed equally among their children. The Will, however, left the house to Edwards and she kept the proceeds after selling the house. Chambers also alleged Edwards stole several hundred thousand dollars to cash.

The motion to dismiss based based on several grounds including res judicata since Edwards was discharged by the probate court. She also alleged Chambers accepted an inheritance under the Will and was estopped from litigation issues decided in probate court as a result of his acceptance.

“A beneficiary taking under a will shall allow all the provisions of the will to be executed as far as the beneficiary can. A beneficiary who has a claim adverse to the will shall be required to elect whether to claim under the will or against it.” Chambers argues that at the time he accepted his inheritance under the will, he was unaware of the extent of Edwards’s undue influence. But all of Chambers’s allegations of tortious interference via fraud, duress, undue influence, control, and theft by conversion pre-date their mother’s death. Moreover, the contents of the will, including the fact that their mother left her house to Edwards, would have been known to Chambers during probate. Accordingly, it appears that Chambers took his inheritance with “full knowledge” of the facts, and he cannot now make a claim against the will.”

The court went further, stating that until it is set aside,  a judgment discharging an executor relieves her from liability. There was no evidence that the probate discharge had been set aside.

Regarding the tortious interference claim, the court said “to establish a claim for tortious interference with a gift under Georgia law, a plaintiff must show that the donor took steps toward perfecting the gift; that the defendant engaged in fraudulent and malicious conduct to divert the perfection of the gift; and that the defendant diverted the gift away from the plaintiff to himself.” It was Chambers duty as the appealing party to perfect the record to show that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not bar litigation (or re-litigation) of issues presented in probate court.

Chambers’ final claim was that the probate court never ruled on his caveat so the claim was not barred. The court rejected that argument because it could have been determined if he had filed his caveat on a timely basis.