Accrual Date for Intentional Interference With Expectancy of Inheritance Claim Subject To Four Year Statute of Limitations

McDougal v. Vecchio, 8th Dist. App. No. 98003, 2012 Ohio 4287. Actions based in fraud, such as an action for intentional interference with expectancy of inheritance have a four year statute of limitations from the date the complainant has discovered or should have discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence the alleged fraud. In 1983, the aunt established a foundation that was funded by the aunts trust with the aunts attorney serving as trustee entitled to substantial fiduciary fees. The aunt passed away in 1992. Despite having an expectation of inheritance from his aunts trust, the nephew discovered shortly after the aunts death that he had been disinherited under a 1985 trust amendment. The nephew inquired the aunts attorney as to the reason for his disinheritance but did not pursue matters further at that point.

In 2003, when the nephews mother passed away, the nephew took possession of his aunts possessions which he stored in his residence. In 2009, he discovered his aunts signature on the trust document funding the foundation was a forgery and filed a complaint for intentional interference with expectancy of inheritance against his aunts attorney. On summary judgment, the court found that there were three potential accrual dates for his claim: (1) 1992 date of his Aunts death; (2) 2003 taking possession of Aunts possessions; (3) 2009 discovery of Aunts forged signature.

In 2003, when Nephew took possessions of his aunts belongings, he had the ability to look through them and discover her estate planning documents and evidence supporting his claim. Nephew waited six years to meaningfully investigate his aunts estate planning documents and eight years from taking possession of them before filing his claim. Because the nephew could have discovered or if he had exercised reasonable diligence, should have discovered the alleged forgery of his aunts signature in 2003, his claim filed in 2011 was past the statute of limitations. As a result, summary judgment was upheld by the court of appeals and his claim was barred by the four year statute of limitations.