She won’t be inheriting now…
In preparation for Halloween, I have been researching the perfect trusts-and-estates-themed costume — something spooky and scary, but also academic and relevant to my death-centric law practice. I have considered the makeup, fashion, and comedic opportunities if I dressed as a corpse (or as we say in lawyer talk, a “decedent”), a mummy, or even the ghost of your great grandmother, holding onto her purse string from the grave. Admittedly the more macabre the subject, the better. After combing the internet and delving into captivating probate case law, I plan to parade on Halloween as a slayer statute.
A state’s slayer statute or slayer rule refers to its prohibition against inheriting from someone whom you have murdered. This specific issue arises in cases where a child kills a parent or grandparent and when a spouse murders her spouse. Generally, if a slayer rule is effectuated, the killer will be treated as if she predeceased the victim and the provisions of the last will and testament or intestate statute will determine who is next in line to receive the inheritance.
Why Law Firms Are Moving Beyond The Billable Hour
Explore 5 expert-backed reasons law firms are rethinking the billable hour and how legal billing software is leading the way.
Slayer rules present some of the most fascinating, albeit frightening, cases in trusts and estates law. These laws are rational as it makes sense that one should not reap benefit from the estate produced as a result of the death caused by the potential beneficiary. The principals behind slayer rules stem from the common law. A pinnacle case in the recitation of the slayer rule is New York’s 1889 case, Riggs v. Palmer. In this case, Elmer Palmer anticipated a large inheritance from his then-living grandfather. Concerned that Grandpa would revise his will to the detriment of Palmer, Grandson poisons Grandpa, who then dies. The New York court did not permit Palmer to inherit under Grandpa’s will. Famously, the court held that while it is the responsibility of the criminal courts to punish perpetrators of crimes, it is the responsibility of the probate courts to prevent heirs profiting by inheritance by killing a relative for the very purpose of inheriting.
In many cases, the pecuniary motives for the killing are obvious and a slayer statute is invoked promptly after death. Other times, often in cases with a history of domestic violence, there are complicating factors wherein the killer may argue self-defense or even insanity in order to preserve her right to the deceased relative’s estate. Sometimes upon the decedent’s passing there is no immediate suggestion of foul play, and the slayer reaps the benefit of the inheritance many months or even years before a slayer statute is pursued.
Patricide, matricide, and even spousal homicide are topics that appear not irregulalry in the news.
Such was the case recently in Toronto when an Ontario Superior Court judge convicted Dellen Millard of murdering his father, Wayne Millard. Originally the 2012 death, resulting from a gunshot wound to the head, was ruled a suicide and at the time Millard received his father’s family fortune.
In August, Shan’ann Watts, a pregnant Colorado mother, and her two young children were killed. Chris Watts, the husband and father, was arrested and charged with murder. Shan’ann Watts died intestate, without a will. Her father is seeking to settle the estate. Chris’s defenses and conviction will determine whether he inherits from his wife and children.
Insanity is often pleaded as a defense to murder and in order to secure one’s inheritance. Although originally thought by officers to be unfit for trial, this past Friday, Jessica Conser of Montana pleaded “not guilty” to the June 5, 2018, murder of her father, Matthew Travao Sr. on June 5 at his Idaho home.
In Massauchetts, Nathan Carman’s aunts have filed a lawsuit following the 2013 slaying of his grandfather, which they allege was carried out to collect a $44 million inheritance. Carman’s mother is currently missing and presumed dead.
Perhaps the most famous slayer rule case of our time is story of brothers Lyle and Erik Menendez who were convicted of murdering their parents in 1989 after several trials and much publicity. The prosecution argued inheritance as a motive for the Beverly Hills slaying. The defense argued years of abuse. This past spring, the brothers enjoyed a prison reunion.
Slayer rules are obviously exciting because they seemingly highlight the interaction between criminal law and trusts and estates law, two practices that do not regularly intersect. While convicting someone of the crime of murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the slayer rule applies to civil law, not criminal law, so it is only necessary to prove the wrongful killing by a preponderance of the evidence, as in a wrongful death claim. This means that even a slayer who is acquitted of the murder in criminal court can still be divested of the inheritance by the civil court administering the estate.
Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at [email protected].