The Beckwith court sought to protect the legislative intent of the Estate Act to allow the courts to deal with inheritance disputes in general. 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. The elements of unlawful interference in the expectation of inheritance in Illinois (also known as “intentional interference in inheritance”) are: Waiting-to-wait interferences and fraudulent incentives to measures are often filed in connection with conflicts of will, and they often require proof of the same amount of facts that a related claim will challenge. In 2012, California became the 26th state to recognize the unlawful act 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. The above situation can only be implemented if a person who is actually aware of an existing contract or an expectation between other parties and intends to interfere with it acts incorrectly with bad intent 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.  The normal unauthorized for pending interventions are money damage. As a general rule, the unlawful act is permitted only in circumstances where there is no appropriate and alternative remedy. Since these cases generally concern Wills, the courts have argued that he could not engage in intentional interference if the applicant has exhausted his recourse to the estate (through a will competition) or has no appropriate alternative remedies in the estate. If the applicant had been able to receive interim assistance by successfully attacking the will of the crook, the applicant cannot sue for annulment; 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. 4.
DCA 1997) Unlawful interference in an expected inheritance – Anyone who, by fraud, coercion or other illicit means, deliberately prevents another from receiving from a third party an inheritance or gift that he would otherwise have received, is responsible for the loss of the inheritance or gifts of the other.  Rick`s misbehaviour towards the mother, the hereditary, caused the absence of a will that divided the mother`s fortune 50/50 between Rick and Emily, as Mother had foreseen, and deprived Emily of her expected inheritance.