A well-pleaded complaint for interference with an expected inheritance was a valid cause of action if recognition of the cause of action was necessary in order to offer a remedy to a long-term committed partner.
Plaintiff filed an action alleging interference with an expected inheritance and further alleged deceit by false promise and sought to amend his complaint. The trial court found that the cause of action was not recognized and dismissed the action. On appeal, the court concluded that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for deceit and was sufficient to allege a false promise, and, by sufficiently pleading that the promise was false at the time it was made appellant also sufficiently pleaded the element of scienter.
Was the complaint sufficient for a recovery for interference with an expected inheritance, and should that cause of action be recognized under the facts presented?
Where recognition of a well-pleaded cause of action for interference with an expected inheritance was required to fashion a recovery for an injured plaintiff, the cause should be recognized. Therefore the court reversed and remanded.