Trusts and Estates
Halperin v. Halperin
Cite as A172110
Filed January 29, 2026
First District, Div. Four
By Golnaz Yazdchi
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
https://www.sheppardmullin.com
Headnote: Intentional Interference with Expected Inheritance
Summary: A claim for intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI) failed where it was alleged that a trustor was prevented from executing a trust amendment with a revised distributive scheme, because the beneficiary had standing to seek relief in probate court and thus an had an adequate probate remedy.
Warren Halperin (Warren) had three children: two sons and a daughter, Susan. Warren’s trust provided that his sons would receive their shares outright and free of trust, but Susan’s share—consisting of IRA retirement accounts—was to be held in trust. Susan claimed she was being treated unfavorably due to adverse tax consequences, which effectively made her share $1 million less than her brothers’ shares. Warren told Susan he intended to amend his trust so that all three children would be treated equally.
Susan alleged that Warren never executed the contemplated trust amendment because her brothers interfered, including by communicating with the estate planning lawyer and interfering with Warren’s instructions, slandering Susan, urging Warren to obtain a restraining order against her, falsely accusing her of stealing Warren’s laptop, and placing Warren in an assisted living facility to limit Susan’s communications with him, among other acts.
Prior to Warren’s death, Susan filed an action in probate court seeking various forms of relief, including elder isolation and removal of Warren’s sons as healthcare agents and powers of attorney. Susan dismissed her petition without prejudice after Warren died, and instead filed a civil complaint against her brothers for intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI). Her brothers demurred, and the court sustained their demurrer without leave to amend. Susan appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. Although there was no trust amendment to set aside, the court reasoned that Susan had standing in probate court—including under Probate Code section 17200—to seek relief against her brothers, as she had done in her initial petition. Because Susan had an adequate probate remedy, her IIEI claim failed.