Susan L. Halperin v. David G. Halperin et al.

Citation: 2026 WL 236310 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. Div. 4, Jan. 29, 2026), A172110

Relevant Facts

• Warren Halperin established a trust in 2014 with three children as beneficiaries: Susan, David, and Michael.

• Susan learned in January 2021 that the trust was more favorable to her brothers—her share was worth approximately $1 million less than each brother’s share.

• Warren stated he intended to amend the trust to equalize distributions and had discussed amendments with his attorney.

• David and Michael allegedly interfered by: slandering Susan to Warren, filing a false police report accusing her of theft, urging a restraining order against her, demanding a capacity evaluation, placing Warren in assisted living, and threatening Warren’s friends to deter them from helping with the amendment.

• Warren died on March 11, 2023, without having executed the equalizing amendment.

• Susan filed a tort claim for intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI).

Legal Issues

Whether Susan could bring a tort claim for intentional interference with an expected inheritance (IIEI), or whether she had an adequate remedy in probate that precluded pursuing the tort claim.

Positions of the Parties

Susan: Even though she had standing in probate, she should be allowed to pursue the IIEI tort because probate remedies were inadequate (no executed trust amendment existed and probate cannot award tort damages against individual actors).

David: Susan had an adequate remedy in probate and could not maintain an IIEI claim; the claim was also barred by statutes of limitations and lacked sufficient factual allegations.

Decision of the Court

AFFIRMED. The trial court’s demurrer without leave to amend was upheld; the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Reasons for the Decision

• Susan had standing in probate as Warren’s child and beneficiary and could (and did) seek relief there based on the same factual allegations.

• The IIEI tort is only available when the aggrieved party has been essentially deprived of access to the probate system—it is a “last recourse.”

• The court distinguished Beckwith v. Dahl (which recognized IIEI in California) because in that case the plaintiff had no standing in probate.

• The unavailability of tort damages in probate does not establish inadequacy of probate remedies for IIEI purposes.