DeWitt v. Duce

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that while tortious interference with inheritance is recognized, there was “an adequate remedy in the probate proceedings” to dispute the estate documents
• holding that where plaintiffs “had an adequate remedy in probate with a fair opportunity to pursue it[,]” the plaintiffs are “barr[ed] . . . from a subsequent action in tort for wrongful interference with a testamentary expectancy.”
• holding, with respect to a will, that “[t]he rule is that if adequate relief is available in a probate proceeding, then that remedy must be exhausted before a tortious interference claim may be pursued”
• discussing adequacy of probate remedy and holding that tortious interference claim may be barred by outcome in prior probate proceeding
• discussing a claim for wrongful interference with a testamentary expectancy and when such a claim is considered a collateral attack on a probate decree
• plaintiff may bring tort action if unable to discover fraud until after probate period had run, or if defendant tortiously induced inter-vivos transfer of estate assets, or if plaintiff unable to establish a maliciously destroyed will

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).