In 2012, California became the 26th state to commit the offence of intentional interference in the expected inheritance (IIEI) in the case of Beckwith v. Dahl, 205 Cal.App.4. 1039 (2012). The unlawful act offered recourse in the civil courts to any person who lost all or part of the inheritance as a result of the unlawful actions of another and who was not the subject of a remedy for the estate. Illicit interference in an expected inheritance – Anyone who, by fraud, coercion or other unlawful means, deliberately prevents another person from receiving from a third party an estate or gift that he would otherwise have received, is responsible for the loss of the inheritance or gift of the other.  The above situation can only be implemented if a person who is actually aware of an existing contract or expectation, including other parties, and intends to interfere with it, does not act maliciously and effectively encroaches on the contract/expectations and causes economic damage.  Historically, there was no exploitable cause if the disturbance was negligence.  However, for some jurisdictions, such claims recognize, although many do not.  An unlawful act of negligent intervention is committed when the negligence of a party interferes with contractual or commercial relations between other parties that cause economic damage, such as the closure of a waterway or the obscuration that prevents the utility from maintaining its existing contracts with consumers.  Illicit intrusions into expectations and fraudulent inducements are often filed in connection with will competitions, and they often require proof of the same amount of facts as a related claim will challenge.
However, they are different from challenges to the will in the following way: if the applicant had been able to obtain temporary assistance by successfully attacking the will of the crook, the plaintiff cannot maintain an action in intensibility; However, failure to successfully attack the will does not exclude the plaintiff because he sought damages because of dessolaus caused by circumstances that do not justify the validity of the will (for example. B, illegal interventions in vivo Trust). Martin v. Martin, 687 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) Rick`s misbehaviour against the mother, heredity, caused the absence of a will that divided the mother`s fortune 50/50 between Rick and Emily, as mother had planned, and deprived Emily of her long-awaited inheritance. The elements of unlawful interference in an Illinois pending (also known as „intentional interference in inheritance“) are: The Beckwith court wanted to protect the legislative intent in the estate law to deal with estate disputes as a general rule. To do so, Beckwith essentially considered that an insufficient estate fund was synonymous with a lack of prestige for a will litigation – an action that is only available in the estate. For example, the intent of a deceased person is traditionally determined by a will in the estate court. If success, the will is set aside in favor of an older version of the will or trusts, or if there is no older version, then the assets of the estate go through rules of intestinal control. According to the IIIE, a successful claim leads to a judgment of damages against the defendant to the extent of the lost inheritance.