A recent court case by a daughter against her brother for loss of her anticipated inheritance when their mother began giving the son her assets points out that such a claim cannot be brought while the mother is still living.
After the death of her husband, Hilda Hauser transferred assets to, and altered her estate plan in favor of, her son, Darrell, and his wife who had been providing care for her.  Teresa Hauser was Hilda’s daughter and an equal beneficiary with Darrell in her mother’s prior estate plan.  Beginning in December 2011, as a result of the exercise of undue influence over Mrs. Hauser by Darrell and his wife, Mrs. Hauser began transferring money to her Wells Fargo accounts and withdrew approximately $20,000 from these accounts by April 2012.
During March 2012, Teresa was alerted by Hilda’s financial institution to these transfers of funds to Mrs. Hauser’s Wells Fargo accounts.  Upon learning of these transactions, Teresa transferred $12,000 from Mrs. Hauser’s Wells Fargo account to her own personal account pursuant to her authority as Mrs. Hauser’s power of attorney agent.  Teresa filed a complaint charging Darrell with fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, and tortious interference with Teresa’s expected inheritance.  The trial court dismissed the complaint.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal.  The court held that Teresa’s claims for relief were not legally viable during the life of Hilda Hauser.  The court said the state does not recognize a claim of tortious interference with an expected inheritance during the life of the willmaker.  Furthermore, the claims of constructive fraud and breach of fiduciary duty fail as a matter of law because Darrell and his wife did not owe a fiduciary duty to Teresa and she may not proceed under these claims solely on the basis that her expected inheritance would be substantially reduced as a result of defendants’ breach.
In its holding, the court stated:  “While Mrs. Hauser remains living, any claim arising out of a fiduciary relationship between her and Defendants [Darrell and his wife] can only be brought by Mrs. Hauser herself or someone legally authorized to act on her behalf.  Therefore, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a claim on her own behalf alleging that Defendants have breached a fiduciary duty owed by them to Mrs. Hauser.  Absent allegations of the existence of a relationship of trust and confidence between Plaintiff and Defendants, Plaintiff’s claims for constructive fraud and breach of fiduciary duty fail as a matter of law.”
Hauser v. Hauser, 2017 WL 672176 (N.C. App. Feb. 21, 2017)
For more questions and concerns on this topic, contact the experienced lawyers at Courtney Elder Law Associates by calling 601-987-3000.