Anderson v. Meadowcroft

• Decision Date: 01 September 1994
• Docket Number: No. 144,144
• Citation: 339 Md. 218,661 A.2d 726
• Parties: Maxine ANDERSON, v. Francis X. MEADOWCROFT. ,
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 218

339 Md. 218

661 A.2d 726

Maxine ANDERSON, v. Francis X. MEADOWCROFT.

No. 144, Sept. Term, 1994.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 19, 1995.

David P. Sutton, Baltimore, for petitioner.

Pamela A. Bresnahan (Steven R. Becker, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, all on brief), Washington, DC, for respondent.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, BELL and RAKER, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

This case draws into question whether interference with an expected inheritance and fraud in the procurement of a will are viable causes of action in Maryland.

I.

Paul Peter Meadowcroft died on November 18, 1987. Under his will, dated August 2, 1981, he left most of his estate to a cousin, Francis X. Meadowcroft (Francis), as the residuary legatee; he also named Francis as the personal representative. ¹ The decedent was survived by three brothers, William, Robert and James Meadowcroft, who filed a caveat to the will. While they claimed that the will was a result of fraud perpetrated on the decedent by Francis, they dismissed their case on April 23, 1992. ²

Maxine Anderson, filed the complaint in this case in the Circuit Court for Harford County, on October 26, 1993, considerably after the statute of limitations on caveat proceedings had run. ³ In the complaint, she claimed that under the decedent's previous will, dated August 29, 1975, she would have received one third of the estate. She alleged that she was the decedent's daughter, and that she lived with the decedent in Baltimore for more than twenty years. She claimed that they maintained a close relationship even after she moved away to Georgia.

She maintained that in the late 1970's, the decedent's health began to deteriorate and "he fell under the influence of Francis X. Meadowcroft." She also alleged that Francis is an attorney practicing in Maryland, and that he learned of the decedent's "sizable estate," and used "his influence and position as an attorney ... to unduly influence, coerce, and persuade the decedent" to change his will, leaving virtually all of his assets to Francis and none to Anderson. Furthermore, Anderson asserted that Francis actually prepared the will that effected this change, and that "such preparation of a Will, wherein the attorney vests himself with the assets of the estate is prima facie invalid and places the burden of proof to show a lack of fraud and undue influence on the attorney who had taken unfair advantage of his fiduciary relationship with the decedent."

The complaint contained two counts--conversion and fraud--and sought damages of $450,000 under each count. Francis moved to dismiss and the court granted the motion as to both counts. It held that Anderson could not maintain a conversion action when the property involved was merely "an expectancy interest under the decedent's earlier will." The court also held that Anderson failed to state a cause of action for fraud because she did not allege that Francis made any misrepresentations to her. Further, the court held that to the extent there was a presumption of fraud in a transaction between an attorney and client, the presumption does not extend to third parties attempting to benefit from it in a case at law. Subsequently, Anderson obtained new counsel and appealed. While the case was pending before the Court of Special Appeals, she filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which we granted.

Anderson's new attorney, apparently realizing the difficulties associated with the causes of action stated in the complaint, attempts to reframe the issues for appeal to be 1) whether the complaint states a cause of action for tortious interference with an expected inheritance, 2) whether the complaint states a cause of action for fraud in the procurement of a will, and 3) whether the complaint is sufficient to withstand dismissal despite the fact that it did not contain the legal theories that would support a right to recovery. Anderson argues that we should recognize the tort of interference with an expected inheritance and the equitable action for fraud in the procurement of a will and find the complaint sufficient based on its factual allegations, despite her failure to specifically articulate viable legal theories.

Francis argues that the appeal should be dismissed because these issues were not raised in the Circuit Court. He further argues that Maryland law does not recognize the causes of action advanced by Anderson and that we should not recognize them now. To do so, he argues, would subvert the legislative policy expressed in the Estates and Trusts Article favoring a speedy and final resolution of probate proceedings, as evidenced by the rather short time limitations contained in §§ 5-207, 5-304, and 5-402.

II.

A.

Section 774B of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, states: "One who by fraud, duress or other tortious means intentionally prevents another from receiving from a third person an inheritance or gift that he would otherwise have received is subject to liability to the other for loss of the inheritance or gift." Comment a explains that this is an extension of the tort of intentional interference with prospective contracts. Early cases refused to allow this extension, usually citing as a reason that there was "no sufficient degree of certainty that the plaintiff ever would have received the anticipated benefits." W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 130, at 1006 (5th ed.1984). Now, however, many courts have permitted recovery on the basis of evidence of "a high degree of probability that the testator would have made or changed a bequest." Id. at 1007. Keeton states that in these cases "[t]he problem appears in reality to be one of satisfactory proof that the loss has been suffered, instead of the existence of a ground of tort liability." Id. Keeton further notes that all cases in which courts have permitted recovery "have involved conduct tortious in itself, such as fraud or defamation or conduct depriving a testator or other actor of the capacity to act, as where there is duress or undue influence." Id. at 1007-08.

Courts in other jurisdictions have recognized the tort of intentional interference with an expected inheritance. DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So.2d 216 (1981); Frohwein v. Haesemeyer, 264 N.W.2d 792 (Iowa 1978); Cyr v. Cote, 396 A.2d 1013 (Me.1979); Lewis v. Corbin, 195 Mass. 520, 81 N.E. 248 (1907); Hammons v. Eisert, 745 S.W.2d 253 (Mo.App.1988); Doughty v. Morris, 117 N.M. 284, 871 P.2d 380 (N.M.Ct.App.1994); Bohannon v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. 210 N.C. 679, 188 S.E. 390 (1936); Firestone v. Galbreath, 67 Ohio St.3d 87, 616 N.E.2d 202 (1993); King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750 (Tex.App.1987); Barone v. Barone, 170 W.Va. 407, 294 S.E.2d 260 (1982). A substantial number of courts permit plaintiffs to maintain such actions only when they have exhausted probate proceedings or can show that such proceedings would not have provided adequate relief. See Moore v. Graybeal, 843 F.2d 706, 710 (3rd Cir.1988); McGregor v. McGregor, 101 F.Supp. 848 (D.Colo.1951), aff'd, 201 F.2d 528 (10th Cir.1953); Benedict v. Smith, 34 Conn.Sup. 63, 376 A.2d 774 (Conn.Super.Ct.1977); DeWitt, supra; Robinson v. First State Bank of Monticello, 97 Ill.2d 174, 73 Ill.Dec. 428, 434, 454 N.E.2d 288, 294 (1983); Axe v. Wilson, 150 Kan. 794, 96 P.2d 880, 888 (1940); Allen v. Lovell's Adm'x, 303 Ky. 238, 197 S.W.2d 424 (1946); Brignati v. Medenwald, 315 Mass. 636, 53 N.E.2d 673, 674 (1944).

We have adopted the tort of wrongful or malicious interference with economic relations. Alexander v. Evander, 336 Md. 635, 650, 650 A.2d 260 (1994); Macklin v. Logan, 334 Md. 287, 296-302, 639 A.2d 112 (1994). But we have not yet considered expanding the tort to apply to interference with gifts or bequests, nor, therefore, have we considered the compatibility of such an expansion with caveat proceedings. In the business context, where the tort does apply, we have required that the interference be "independently wrongful or unlawful, quite apart from its effect on the plaintiff's business relationships." Alexander, supra, 336 Md. at 657, 650 A.2d 260. We have said: "Wrongful or unlawful acts include common law torts and ' "violence or intimidation, defamation, injurious falsehood or other fraud, violation of criminal law, and the institution or threat of groundless civil suits or criminal prosecutions in bad faith," ' " Id. (quoting K & K Management v. Lee, 316 Md. 137, 166, 557 A.2d 965 (1989) (quoting Prosser, Law of Torts, § 130, 952-953 (4th ed.1971))).

B.

What Anderson refers to as fraud in the procurement of a will is a cause of action based essentially on the same facts that would support a cause of action for intentional interference with an expected inheritance. Fraud in the procurement of a will, however, is an equitable cause of action that seeks the imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the rightful beneficiaries on the proceeds that have been fraudulently obtained by the defendant. See Restatement of Restitution, § 184 (1937) ("Where a disposition of property by will or an intestacy is procured by fraud, duress or undue influence, the person acquiring the property holds it upon a constructive trust, unless adequate relief can otherwise be given in a probate court."); Keeton, supra, § 130 at 1007 ("Courts of equity have granted relief by imposing a constructive trust [when there has been unlawful interference with an expected inheritance]."); Barone, supra, 294 S.E.2d at 263 ("[I]f by fraud a devisee had procured a will in his favor preventing an intended testamentary gift to someone else, equity will enforce the intended testamentary disposition by impressing a trust in favor of the person defrauded, and treat the actual devisee as a constructive trustee holding title for the rightful beneficiary."); Monach v. Koslowski, 322 Mass. 466, 78 N.E.2d 4 (1948); Latham v. Father Divine, 299 N.Y. 22, 85 N.E.2d 168 (1949).

Anderson...