Does Utah recognize the tort of intentional interference with inheritance? Osguthorpe v. Rudd Explained

In a significant development for Utah estate litigation, the Utah Supreme Court in Osguthorpe v. Rudd recognized the tort of intentional interference with inheritance for the first time, establishing when beneficiaries may pursue tort remedies outside of probate proceedings.

Background and Facts

After Dr. D.A. Osguthorpe’s death in 2009, his adult children from his first marriage discovered that his estate plan had been amended multiple times, shifting assets from them to his second wife June and Colorado State University. The children sued David Rudd, June’s nephew and an attorney who had represented both spouses, along with his law firm Ballard Spahr. They alleged Rudd exercised undue influence over Dr. Osguthorpe and committed various breaches of fiduciary duty to secure benefits for himself and June. The district court dismissed their intentional interference with inheritance claim, ruling Utah did not recognize such a tort.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three primary issues: (1) whether Utah recognizes the tort of intentional interference with inheritance; (2) whether estate claims could be assigned to beneficiaries when a special fiduciary declined to pursue them; and (3) whether statements in an affidavit related to settlement negotiations were properly excluded as mediation communications.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, formally recognizing the inheritance tort using elements from the Third Restatement of Torts. However, the court imposed a crucial limitation: the tort is only available when the Utah Uniform Probate Code does not provide a remedy for the same claim. The court explained that Utah’s probate statutes expressly allow common law to “supplement” the code unless “particular provisions” displace the common law principle. The court affirmed the denial of assignment of estate claims to the children, finding conflicts of interest that would circumvent prior court rulings removing them as fiduciaries. Finally, the court reversed the exclusion of impeachment evidence, holding that affidavit statements made outside of mediation do not fall under mediation privilege protections.

Practice Implications

This decision provides Utah practitioners with a new cause of action for inheritance interference, but requires careful analysis of whether probate remedies are available. Attorneys must examine whether the specific wrongful conduct alleged—such as preventing execution of a new will or improper depletion of assets—could be addressed through probate proceedings. The decision also clarifies that legal malpractice claims are generally assignable absent compelling public policy concerns, and that trust claims may be assigned to beneficiaries under appropriate circumstances. For estate litigation, practitioners should consider both probate and tort remedies, ensuring tort claims target conduct truly outside the probate system’s reach.