The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has ruled in favor of Darby Sabin, allowing her to pursue a claim against family members for allegedly interfering with her expected inheritance. The court's decision, issued on October 22, 2026, follows a dismissal by the Franklin County Superior Court, which had previously ruled against Sabin's claims. This ruling is significant as it addresses issues surrounding inheritance rights and the responsibilities of those managing an estate.
Sabin's case centers on her late grandfather, Steven Sabin, and involves allegations against Shawn Newcomb, Cynthia Soucy, and Owen Soucy. The court's ruling reinstates Sabin's claims, asserting that she has sufficiently alleged a claim for tortious interference with an expectancy of inheritance. This decision is crucial for Sabin, who argues that her expected share of her grandfather's estate was wrongfully diverted by the defendants.
Background
Darby Sabin is the granddaughter of Steven Sabin, who had three children, including Darby’s father, Paul, who passed away before Steven. In early 2022, as Steven and his wife Christine faced cognitive decline, Steven executed a will that stipulated Darby would inherit what would have been her father’s share of the estate. The will also appointed Newcomb and Steven's daughter Janice as joint personal representatives.
As Steven's health deteriorated, family dynamics shifted. In mid-2022, various family members, including Darby, began caring for Steven, while his wife was placed in a memory care facility. Tensions arose when Cynthia Soucy insisted that Steven move to a senior living facility, which he resisted. Eventually, Steven was moved, and shortly after, Owen Soucy moved into Steven's home.
In March 2024, following the death of Christine, Newcomb listed Steven's property for sale at a price significantly below its market value. The property was sold to Owen for $105,000, with Newcomb allegedly providing a seller credit to facilitate the sale. After Steven's death in June 2024, Newcomb and Cynthia reportedly divided the proceeds from the sale, which were not included in the estate, raising concerns about the legitimacy of their actions.
The Ruling
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, led by Justice Connors, reviewed the case and found that Sabin's complaint adequately stated a claim for tortious interference with an expectancy of inheritance. The court noted that the elements of such a claim include the existence of an expectancy, intentional interference by the defendants, a reasonable certainty that the expectancy would have been realized but for the interference, and damages resulting from that interference.
The court stated, "The complaint avers that Darby is Steven’s grandchild; that she is named in the will and took Paul’s place upon his death; and lists various items, including the fair market value of a house, which, she explains in some detail, were diverted by the defendants." This acknowledgment of Sabin's claims indicates that the court found sufficient grounds for her to proceed with her case.
Furthermore, the court ruled that the power of attorney (POA) granted to Newcomb did not shield him from liability for actions taken in bad faith. The court emphasized that a POA cannot exonerate an agent from liability for dishonest actions or improper motives. The court concluded, "No POA, however broad, is a license to steal," underscoring the importance of fiduciary duties in estate management.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for inheritance disputes in Maine, particularly regarding the responsibilities of individuals managing estates. It reinforces the notion that beneficiaries have rights that must be respected, even in the face of complex family dynamics. The decision also highlights the legal standards for proving tortious interference with an expectancy of inheritance, which may influence future cases.
For Darby Sabin, this ruling opens the door for her to present her case in court, seeking justice for what she believes is a wrongful diversion of her expected inheritance. The outcome of her case could set a precedent for similar disputes, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability among those handling estates.
What's Next
Following the court's ruling, the case will return to the Franklin County Superior Court for further proceedings. The defendants may still have the option to appeal the Supreme Judicial Court's decision, but details regarding any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing. As the case progresses, it will be essential to monitor how the court addresses the specific allegations of interference and the management of Steven Sabin's estate.