A recent California Appellate Court case was just published, and it tells the story of how not to sue your brothers over your dad’s estate.
The case is called Halperin v. Halperin. The main characters are Warren, the father who died, Susan, the disgruntled sister and plaintiff, and David and Michael, her brothers and the defendants.
Susan filed an action against her brothers for intentional interference with an expected inheritance (IIEI), yes, that’s really a tort action someone can bring in California. However, and this becomes an important part of this story - this is not an action one brings in probate. It’s an action outside the probate court, in civil court. Most state courts include civil, criminal, probate, and family courts - separate courts for separate subject matters.
In her complaint, Susan alleged that David and Michael interfered with Warren's efforts to amend his living trust to give Susan an equal share with her brothers.
The trial court dismissed her action, ruling that she should have sought relief in probate court instead of this civil tort action. Not liking the ruling, Susan appealed the trial court’s decision.
Warren Halperin created his revocable living trust back in 2014. Like thousands of California families, he wanted to avoid probate, keep things private, and make sure his assets passed smoothly to his three adult children: Susan, David, and Michael.
But the trust distributions weren't equal. The sons were to receive their shares outright and free of trust. Susan’s share consisted of IRA retirement accounts that had to stay in trust. Because of the way IRAs are taxed when distributed from a trust, Susan’s portion was effectively worth about $1 million less than her brothers’ shares. She felt shortchanged.
In early 2021, Susan sat down with her dad and pointed out how her inheritance would be less than her brothers'. Warren told her he agreed that she should be treated equally. He had already talked to his estate planning attorney back as April 2019 about amending the trust. Susan left that conversation believing the change was coming.
It never happened.
According to Susan’s civil complaint, David and Michael made sure the amendment never got signed. She claimed the alleged interference occurred primarily in 2021 and included the following:
In short, Susan painted a picture of two brothers who actively blocked their father from doing what he said he wanted to do. (Important note: These are Susan’s allegations as described in the appellate opinion. The courts did not make any findings about whether these events actually occurred; they accepted the claims as pleaded for purposes of deciding whether the case could proceed in civil court.)
Here’s the part that became fatal to her civil case.
In December 2022, while Warren was still alive, Susan filed a probate petition in Alameda County Superior Court. She accused her brothers of elder isolation and financial misconduct. She asked the court to remove David as trustee and as Warren’s healthcare agent and power of attorney. The petition contained many of the same factual allegations she later used in her civil complaint.
Warren passed away on March 11, 2023.
On May 1, 2023, Susan dismissed her probate petition—without prejudice. That means she could have refiled it, but she chose not to.
Instead, in March 2024, she filed a civil lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress and intentional interference with an expected inheritance (IIEI). She later dropped the emotional-distress claim and added elder financial abuse in an amended complaint filed in October 2024.
David demurred (asked the court to throw the case out). The trial court agreed. It took judicial notice of the earlier probate filing and ruled that Susan had an adequate remedy in probate court. Therefore, she could not bring a civil IIEI claim. The entire case was dismissed with prejudice.
The First Appellate District, Division Four, published its opinion on January 29, 2026 (Case A172110). The appellate court agreed with the trial judge 100%.
Here’s the key legal point the court hammered home:
The tort of intentional interference with expected inheritance is a “last resort” remedy. California courts have said (in cases like Beckwith v. Dahl and Munn v. Briggs) that you can only sue in civil court for IIEI if probate court cannot give you meaningful relief. Susan, as a named beneficiary under the trust, had standing in probate. She could have:
The court was blunt: “The absence of an executed trust amendment does not mean there was no probate remedy.” Susan had already started down the probate road and then voluntarily got off it. She couldn’t now complain that the road didn’t exist.
The appellate court also rejected Susan’s argument that probate couldn’t give her “tort damages” against her brothers personally. Probate proceedings are in rem - they decide who gets what from the estate. IIEI is in personam - it seeks money damages from the wrongdoers themselves. But the law still says you have to try probate first if it can fix the distribution. Only if probate is truly unavailable (for example, if you’re not a beneficiary at all, or the assets are already gone) does the civil tort become available.
Estate fights between siblings are shockingly common. Studies show that roughly 44% of all estate disputes involve brothers and sisters. In Los Angeles County alone, about 40% of probate cases now turn into trust litigation. And when families end up in court, the average legal bill can easily hit six figures - money that comes straight out of the very inheritance everyone is fighting over.
This case is a textbook example of how emotions and old resentments can turn a fixable family disagreement into years of expensive, public litigation.
A great living trust can keep your family out of probate court. But no document, no matter how well drafted, can fix a broken family. The Halperin case is a reminder that the real work of estate planning isn’t just the paperwork; it’s managing expectations and preventing the kind of interference that leads to lawsuits.
If you’re a parent who wants to make sure your kids don’t end up like the Halperins, or if you’re an adult child who suspects interference with a parent’s plan, the time to act is now, while everyone is still alive and the trust can still be fixed.
Don’t wait until the funeral flowers have wilted and the lawyers are circling.
The best estate plan isn’t the one that wins in court - it’s the one that never has to go to court.
This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
___________________________________