Close this search box.

Relatives Who Arranged For Trust Are Sued for Interference

Print Article


James Graham and Louise Loehr made an unusual deal in 1987. The two Missouri residents agreed that Graham would move in with Loehr, be introduced as her “man” or “man friend,” and act as both her real estate agent and personal companion. In return, Loehr would agree to leave her house to Graham if she died before him, and also give him “several million” dollars to provide for his care after her death. In 1988, the couple reduced their agreement to writing.

Apparently, Ms. Loehr’s relatives did not approve. One of them took her to visit his lawyer in early 1989. After consulting with the lawyer, Ms. Loehr signed a living trust and transferred most of her assets into the trust’s name. She also signed a new will, which left her entire estate to the trust. The trust itself made no provision for Mr. Graham.

Six years later, Ms. Loehr died. Shortly after her death her relatives removed all of Mr. Graham’s personal effects from the home; when he objected, his property was returned to him, but his copy of the agreement with Ms. Loehr was not.

Ms. Loehr’s family instituted a probate proceeding, seeking to admit the will prepared in 1989. Filings with the court indicated that her probate estate would amount to about $80,000; the bulk of her estate, somewhere in the range of $10,000,000 in total value, would be controlled by the living trust she had signed.

Mr. Graham determined that it was pointless to object to the probate, since neither the residence nor the “several million dollars” he claimed he had been promised would be part of the probate proceeding. Instead, he brought a separate lawsuit against Ms. Loehr’s four relatives.

Mr. Graham’s lawsuit alleged that Ms. Loehr’s relatives had intentionally interfered with his expectancy under the contract he had made with Ms. Loehr. He did not ask the court to enforce the contract itself, but instead sought $15,000 for actual damages and $5 million in punitive damages from each of the four defendants.

Ms. Loehr’s relatives asked the trial judge to dismiss the lawsuit. They insisted that Mr. Graham should first seek his relief in probate court. The trial court agreed, and the lawsuit was dismissed.

Missouri’s Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge’s holding. If Mr. Graham had filed a probate court action, the judges noted, there would have been insufficient assets to satisfy his claim. Although a contract must ordinarily be enforced against an estate rather than its beneficiaries, Mr. Graham’s claim could properly be made against the four relatives who he alleges induced Ms. Loehr to circumvent their agreement. Graham v. Manche, June 16, 1998.

It is important to understand that the Court of Appeals’ ruling in Graham v. Manche did not uphold the contract itself. The judges simply decided that Mr. Graham should be given a chance to prove that there was an agreement, and that Mrs. Loehr’s relatives intentionally acted to disrupt that agreement. By setting the matter for a trial, the decision gives Mr. Graham his day in court.

Arizona law on the claim of intentional interference with an expectancy is not yet clear. Only a handful of states have permitted actions outside the probate court in similar circumstances, and Arizona courts have not yet joined them. Most often, the actions are brought when there is some good reason that a probate proceeding will not right an alleged wrong. With the extraordinary growth in recent years in use of living trusts and other probate-avoidance techniques, it is not difficult to imagine that there will be a related growth in claims like those made by Mr. Graham. Often these claims will be the only way to impose the structure of probate proceedings on non-probate transfers.

Stay up to date

Subscribe to our Newsletter to get our takes on some of the situations families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities find themselves in. These posts help guide you in the decision making process and point out helpful tips and nuances to take advantage of. Enter your email below to have our entries sent directly to your inbox!

Robert B. Fleming


Robert Fleming is a Fellow of both the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. He has been certified as a Specialist in Estate and Trust Law by the State Bar of Arizona‘s Board of Legal Specialization, and he is also a Certified Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation. Robert has a long history of involvement in local, state and national organizations. He is most proud of his instrumental involvement in the Special Needs Alliance, the premier national organization for lawyers dealing with special needs trusts and planning.

Robert has two adult children, two young grandchildren and a wife of over fifty years. He is devoted to all of them. He is also very fond of Rosalind Franklin (his office companion corgi), and his homebound cat Muninn. He just likes people, their pets and their stories.

Elizabeth N.R. Friman


Elizabeth Noble Rollings Friman is a principal and licensed fiduciary at Fleming & Curti, PLC. Elizabeth enjoys estate planning and helping families navigate trust and probate administrations. She is passionate about the fiduciary work that she performs as a trustee, personal representative, guardian, and conservator. Elizabeth works with CPAs, financial professionals, case managers, and medical providers to tailor solutions to complex family challenges. Elizabeth is often called upon to serve as a neutral party so that families can avoid protracted legal conflict. Elizabeth relies on the expertise of her team at Fleming & Curti, and as the Firm approaches its third decade, she is proud of the culture of care and consideration that the Firm embodies. Finding workable solutions to sensitive and complex family challenges is something that Elizabeth and the Fleming & Curti team do well.

Amy F. Matheson


Amy Farrell Matheson has worked as an attorney at Fleming & Curti since 2006. A member of the Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council, she is primarily responsible for estate planning and probate matters.

Amy graduated from Wellesley College with a double major in political science and English. She is an honors graduate of Suffolk University Law School and has been admitted to practice in Arizona, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia.

Prior to joining Fleming & Curti, Amy worked for American Public Television in Boston, and with the international trade group at White & Case, LLP, in Washington, D.C.

Amy’s husband, Tom, is an astronomer at NOIRLab and the Head of Time Domain Services, whose main project is ANTARES. Sadly, this does not involve actual time travel. Amy’s twin daughters are high school students; Finn, her Irish Red and White Setter, remains a puppy at heart.

Famous people's wills

Matthew M. Mansour


Matthew is a law clerk who recently earned his law degree from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. His undergraduate degree is in psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Matthew has had a passion for advocacy in the Tucson community since his time as a law student representative in the Workers’ Rights Clinic. He also has worked in both the Pima County Attorney’s Office and the Pima County Public Defender’s Office. He enjoys playing basketball, caring for his cat, and listening to audiobooks narrated by the authors.