Richard T. ARCHER, David B. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer, Petitioners, v. T. Mark ANDERSON and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Ted Anderson, Respondents

Richard T. ARCHER, David B. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer, Petitioners, v. T. Mark ANDERSON and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Ted Anderson, Respondents

The Court affirmed the court of appeals: in this case the Archers had adequate remedies under existing law (constructive trust, restitution, probate procedures) so recognition of a distinct tort of intentional interference with inheritance was unnecessary; however, Justice Johnson would not categorically foreclose the possibility of recognizing such a tort in future cases where no adequate remedy exists.

Citation
556 S.W.3d 228
Parties
Petitioner: Richard T. Archer; Petitioner: David B. Archer; Petitioner: Carol Archer Bugg; Petitioner: John V. Archer; Petitioner: Karen Archer Ball; Petitioner: Sherri Archer; Respondent: T. Mark Anderson; Respondent: Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson
Court
Texas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
United States
Judgment Date
22 June 2018
Case Number
16-0256
Procedural Posture
Petition for Review / Supreme Court Opinion (concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part); Judgment Affirmed
Outcome
Judgment of the court of appeals affirmed; the Court concludes no need to recognize the tort of intentional interference with inheritance in this case and declines to expand tort law here (concurring justice dissents from blanket rejection).
Legal Topics
Intentional Interference With Inheritance, Constructive Trust, Undue Influence, Diminished Capacity, Probate Remedies
Source Language
English
Probate Torts Elder Law Intentional Interference With Inheritance Constructive Trust Undue Influence Diminished Capacity Probate Remedies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard T. Archer

Petitioner

David B. Archer

Petitioner

Carol Archer Bugg

Petitioner

John V. Archer

Petitioner

Karen Archer Ball

Petitioner

Sherri Archer

Petitioner

T. Mark Anderson

Respondent

Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Review / Supreme Court Opinion (concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part); Judgment Affirmed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Texas should recognize a tort for intentional interference with an expected inheritance
  2. 2 Whether existing probate remedies (constructive trust, restitution) are adequate to redress interference with inheritance
  3. 3 Whether recognizing such a tort would conflict with Texas probate law

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed the court of appeals: in this case the Archers had adequate remedies under existing law (constructive trust, restitution, probate procedures) so recognition of a distinct tort of intentional interference with inheritance was unnecessary; however, Justice Johnson would not categorically foreclose the possibility of recognizing such a tort in future cases where no adequate remedy exists.

Court Disposition

Judgment of the court of appeals affirmed; the Court concludes no need to recognize the tort of intentional interference with inheritance in this case and declines to expand tort law here (concurring justice dissents from blanket rejection).

Orders

  • Affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals; no further relief ordered