When Grief Collides With Manipulation

Most families expect probate to follow the decedent’s true intentions. But sometimes, someone takes advantage of an elderly or vulnerable person and manipulates their way into an inheritance. They may isolate the decedent, poison family relationships, or prevent the decedent from updating their estate plan.

When this happens, families are left asking: “How do we fix something that interfered with the person’s true intentions and isn’t fair?”

 

What Is “Inheritance Sabotage” and How Do Predatory Beneficiaries Pull It Off?

Inheritance sabotage occurs when a beneficiary intentionally alters the outcome of a will or trust by manipulating the decedent or destroying relationships.  It could also be called interference with expected inheritance.  More on that later.

Common tactics include:

• Making false accusations about another heir
• Preventing communication, blocking visits, or intercepting calls
• Exploiting cognitive decline or loneliness
• Creating dependency through control of finances, transportation, or medical care
• Discouraging or preventing attorney meetings
• Isolating the decedent to control information

These tactics gradually shift the decedent’s perceptions—and eventually their estate plan. The law refers to this as wrongful enrichment, because the beneficiary ends up with property they shouldn’t have received.

Why Isn’t There a Simple Claim for “Stealing My Inheritance” in Arizona?

It feels intuitive that someone who manipulates their way into an inheritance should be sued for “inheritance theft.” But Arizona doesn’t recognize a standalone tort called Intentional Interference with an Expected Inheritance. That means there is no single, packaged lawsuit titled: “You stole my inheritance.”

However, Arizona courts have long recognized that justice sometimes requires looking beyond the formalities of a will or trust. So instead of a tort, Arizona relies on equitable remedies—flexible tools judges use to correct situations where someone benefits from manipulative, deceptive, or unfair conduct.  The absence of a specific tort is not a limitation. It simply means the remedy is framed differently—potentially more powerfully.

What Can I Actually Do About It? How Arizona Courts Undo Inheritance Sabotage

The most important remedy in inheritance sabotage cases is a constructive trust.  A constructive trust allows the court to say:

“You may have inherited this property on paper, but you’re holding it for someone else because you obtained it unfairly.”

This is one of the strongest tools available because it:

• Operates even when the wrongful conduct occurred long before the will was signed
• Focuses on fairness, not technical validity
• Applies when a wrongdoer prevents the decedent from signing updated documents
• Can require the wrongdoer to turn over property or pay its value

It also applies when the rightful heir never actually owned the property, because Arizona law recognizes that they were wrongfully prevented from receiving it.

Realistic Example #1: Classic Inheritance Sabotage Through Lies and Isolation

Maria, a widow, planned to leave her home to her son David.

Her daughter Angela, worried she’d receive less, began telling Maria that David was stealing from her, plotting to move her into a care facility, and only visiting to secure his inheritance.

Angela intercepted phone calls, screened messages, discouraged visits, and became the “gatekeeper” of Maria’s life. Eventually, while Maria was confused, dependent, and isolated, Angela pressured her into signing a new will leaving everything to her.

Maria dies. David learns he’s been cut out.

David can’t file a claim titled “inheritance interference”—but he can, among possibly other things, ask the court to impose a constructive trust on the assets Angela received, requiring her to transfer the property or its value to him.

Realistic Example #2: Preventing the Decedent From Signing a New Will

Paul wanted to update his estate plan to leave a significant gift to his longtime partner Eli.

Paul’s son Mark, who had been pressuring Paul for money, learned of the planned change. Mark began taking control of Paul’s schedule, discouraging attorney meetings, and insisting Paul was “too tired” to deal with legal paperwork. Mark even canceled Paul’s upcoming estate-planning appointment without telling him.

Paul died suddenly—before signing the updated will. The old will left everything to Mark.

Eli was wrongfully prevented from receiving what Paul intended. In this situation, a court can impose a constructive trust on the property Mark inherited, ensuring Eli receives what Paul tried—but was prevented—from executing.

How Is Inheritance Sabotage Different From a Regular Will Contest?

Although both may arise from the same facts, the focus of each is very different.

A Will Contest Focuses on the Document Itself

You challenge the will by arguing:

• The decedent lacked capacity
• The wrongdoer exerted undue influence at the time of signing
• Fraud
• The will wasn’t properly executed

This happens within the probate case and focuses narrowly on the moment of execution.

An Inheritance Sabotage Claim Focuses on the Wrongdoer’s Misconduct

A constructive trust looks at the beneficiary’s behavior, not just the document. It examines:

• Whether the beneficiary manipulated events
• Whether they isolated or controlled the decedent
• Whether they prevented the decedent from carrying out their true intentions
• Whether they ended up with property they should not, in fairness, keep

It operates outside the technicalities of will validity and directly targets unjust enrichment.

Quick Comparison: Probate Remedies vs. Civil Remedies

Probate Will Contest

• Challenges the validity of the document
• Focuses on the decedent’s mental state and signing conditions
• Occurs inside the probate court
• Goal: invalidate or modify the will or trust

Civil Constructive Trust Action

• Targets the wrongdoer’s conduct
• Focuses on fairness and wrongful enrichment
• Can run parallel to probate
• Goal: force the wrongdoer to return benefits they obtained unfairly

Together, these remedies help restore the decedent’s true intent—even when a predatory beneficiary tried to rewrite the story.

When to Call an Attorney About Inheritance Sabotage

You should speak with an attorney if you believe:

• A beneficiary influenced or isolated the decedent
• You were unexpectedly or dramatically cut out of a will or trust
• The decedent was vulnerable, dependent, or cognitively impaired
• Someone prevented the decedent from signing estate documents
• A family member suddenly gained control over the decedent’s life
• Estate changes happened shortly before death or during a decline

These cases are deeply fact-intensive, emotionally complex, and legally challenging. They require careful coordination between probate procedures and civil remedies. Our firm helps families uncover the manipulation, protect the decedent’s true intentions, and pursue the remedies needed to correct the injustice.  Contact us today if you have any questions and want to assess your rights and remedies.

Want to learn more about will contests?  Watch this edition of the Berk Brief: