Slayer rule

Last updated

The slayer rule, in the U.S. law of inheritance, stops a person inheriting property from a person they murdered (so that, for example, a murderer cannot inherit from parents or a spouse they killed).

Contents

While a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the slayer rule applies to civil law, not criminal law, so the petitioner must only prove the murder by a preponderance of the evidence, as in a wrongful death claim meaning on the civil standard of proof of the balance of probability. Hence, even a slayer who is acquitted of the crime of murder can lose the inheritance by the civil court running the estate.

So far, 47 states have codified the slayer statute, either by adopting the Uniform Probate Code (UPC) or a version of the code that includes the slayer statute.

Statutory response to slayers

At common law, American courts used two different theories when dealing with early slayer cases. Some courts would disinherit the slayer because of the public policy principle that a slayer should not profit from his crime (No Profit theory). [1]

No Profit theory

In Mutual Life v. Armstrong (1886), the first American case to consider the issue of whether a slayer could profit from their crime, the US Supreme Court set forth the No Profit theory (the term "No Profit" was coined by legal scholar Adam D. Hansen in an effort to distinguish early common law cases that applied a similar outcome when dealing with slayers), [1] a public policy justification of slayer statutes: "It would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of the country if one could recover insurance money payable on the death of the party whose life he had feloniously taken." [2]

Other courts were reluctant to disinherit a slayer in absence of a legislatively codified statute directing the court to do so (Strict Construction theory). [1]

Strict Construction theory

The Strict Construction theory (the term "Strict Construction" was coined by legal scholar Adam D. Hansen in an effort to distinguish early common law cases that dealt applied a similar outcome when disinheriting slayers) [1] originated from Judge John Clinton Gray's dissent in Riggs v. Palmer (1889). [3] Judge Gray argued that the criminal law already established punishment for slayers. A court denying the estate to a slayer was to, in effect, add significant further punishment to what a slayer received under the criminal statute. Judge Gray argued that this was not something the court was permitted to do without an express, written statute. In Judge Gray's opinion, the court could not simply create or imagine such statutes so as to obtain a morally pleasing result.

Slayer statutes codify the public policy principle that a murderer cannot profit from his crime. Slayer statutes provide a right of civil action to a victim's successors for the purpose of directing the victim's testate/intestate property away from the slayer. Such an action is brought by a successor, or other party of interest (e.g., life insurance company, bank), on behalf of the victim's estate. The slayer statute applies to both real and personal property that would have been acquired by intestacy or by will. [4]

In 1936, legal scholar John W. Wade proposed a No Profit theory statutory fix to promote uniformity amongst the states in dealing with slayer cases. [5] In 1969, the Uniform Law Commission included No Profit theory language in its first promulgation of the Uniform Probate Code (UPC). [6] Forty-eight states have enacted laws that strip a slayer of any inheritance benefit he would have gained from his unlawful act. [7]

Regional details

United States

In the United States, most jurisdictions have enacted a slayer statute, [8] which codifies the rule and supplies additional conditions. Such laws have sometimes been construed narrowly because the relevant statutes are criminal in nature, and serve to take away someone's rights that are otherwise afforded by law. Interpreted this way, a slayer statute will not prevent the killer from acquiring title to the property by other means. In jurisdictions with a common law slayer rule, a slayer statute may serve to extend and supplement the common law rule, rather than limiting it. For example, where the statute requires the heir to have been convicted to bar inheritance, a common law slayer rule that does not have this requirement may still serve to bar inheritance. [9]

Arizona

In 2012, the Arizona legislature amended Arizona's slayer rule to include the lesser crime of manslaughter in an effort to subject more killers to civil disinheritance. [1] Prior to the 2012 amendment, only killers found guilty of murder in the first or second degree would be disinherited under Arizona's slayer rule. Several specific cases (e.g., Grace Pianka; [10] Douglas Grant; [11] [12] [13] and Gilbert Ramos) [14] prompted the Arizona legislature to amend Arizona's slayer rule by 1) expressly defining “intentional and felonious” to mean any individual who is found guilty of murder in the first or second degree, or the lesser crime of manslaughter; 2) allowing victims to place the decedent's estate in constructive trust immediately from the time of the killing; and 3) allowing the victims to place the slayer's estate (i.e., life insurance benefits) in constructive trust, in the case of murder-suicide. Arizona now touts its slayer rule as the strongest in the nation.

Illinois

A person found guilty of financial exploitation, abuse or neglect cannot inherit any benefit from their victim. [15]

Kansas

Kansas prohibits a slayer's inheritance where suicide is shortly after the murder. [16]

Maryland

The Maryland slayer rule is harsher than most other states. In addition to prohibiting murderers from inheriting from their victims, Maryland's slayer rule prohibits anyone else from inheriting from murder victims through their murderers; Maryland's slayer rule is thus similar in structure to corruption of blood. [17]

For example, a mother leaves her son $50,000, and leaves her son's child (her grandchild) $100,000. She leaves her residuary estate (i.e., whatever else is left of the estate) to her daughter. If the son kills his mother, then under Maryland law, the son's child will inherit the $100,000; however the son's $50,000 (which is also the indirect inheritance of the grandchild through his father), is not available under Maryland law to either the son, or his child. The $50,000 becomes part of the mother's residuary estate and goes to the daughter.

Missouri

The Missouri slayer rule only exists in common law. It has not been codified. There has not been a proposed slayer statute by the legislature in recent years. The Missouri Supreme Court found a slayer statute to be unnecessary in Lee v. Aylward, when determining whether contingent beneficiaries, children of the slayer, or the next of kin should be the heirs of the victim's estate. [18] The court's holding relied on the Model Probate Code and several jurisdictions favoring the contingent beneficiaries, and assuming the victim would disfavor the children of the slayer would call for "inappropriate speculation." [18] Although the Supreme Court of Missouri references the Model Probate Code in Lee, the Model Probate Code has not been adopted by Missouri legislation.

Texas

Texas law states "No conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate." However, if a beneficiary of a life insurance policy or contract is convicted and sentenced (including accomplices) in willfully bringing about the death of the insured, proceeds are then paid in accordance with the Texas Insurance Code. [19]

Washington

A person found guilty of financial exploitation, abuse or neglect cannot inherit any benefit from their victim. [8]

United Kingdom

A similar principle in the United Kingdom is governed by the Forfeiture Act 1982.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Inheritance</span> Practice of passing on property upon the death of individuals

Inheritance is the practice of receiving private property, titles, debts, entitlements, privileges, rights, and obligations upon the death of an individual. The rules of inheritance differ among societies and have changed over time. Officially bequeathing private property and/or debts can be performed by a testator via will, as attested by a notary or by other lawful means.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Will and testament</span> Legal declaration by which a person distributes their property at death

A will and testament is a legal document that expresses a person's (testator) wishes as to how their property (estate) is to be distributed after their death and as to which person (executor) is to manage the property until its final distribution. For the distribution (devolution) of property not determined by a will, see inheritance and intestacy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intestacy</span> Dying without leaving a will

Intestacy is the condition of the estate of a person who dies without having in force a valid will or other binding declaration. Alternatively this may also apply where a will or declaration has been made, but only applies to part of the estate; the remaining estate forms the "intestate estate". Intestacy law, also referred to as the law of descent and distribution, refers to the body of law that determines who is entitled to the property from the estate under the rules of inheritance.

In civil law and Roman law, the legitime, also known as a forced share or legal right share, of a decedent's estate is that portion of the estate from which he cannot disinherit his children, or his parents, without sufficient legal cause. The word comes from French héritier légitime, meaning "rightful heir."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Probate</span> Proving of a will

In common law jurisdictions, probate is the judicial process whereby a will is "proved" in a court of law and accepted as a valid public document that is the true last testament of the deceased, or whereby the estate is settled according to the laws of intestacy in the state of residence of the deceased at time of death in the absence of a legal will.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estate planning</span> Process of planning for inheritance of property

Estate planning is the process of anticipating and arranging for the management and disposal of a person's estate during the person's life in preparation for a person's future incapacity or death. The planning includes the bequest of assets to heirs, loved ones, and/or charity, and may include minimizing gift, estate, and generation-skipping transfer taxes. Estate planning includes planning for incapacity, reducing or eliminating uncertainties over the administration of a probate, and maximizing the value of the estate by reducing taxes and other expenses. The ultimate goal of estate planning can only be determined by the specific goals of the estate owner, and may be as simple or complex as the owner's wishes and needs directs. Guardians are often designated for minor children and beneficiaries with incapacity.

A person's next of kin (NOK) may be that person's spouse, adopted family member or closest living blood relative. Some countries, such as the United States, have a legal definition of "next of kin". In other countries, such as the United Kingdom, "next of kin" may have no legal definition and may not necessarily refer to blood relatives at all.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elective share</span>

An elective share is a term used in American law relating to inheritance, which describes a proportion of an estate which the surviving spouse of the deceased may claim in place of what they were left in the decedent's will. It may also be called a widow's share, statutory share, election against the will, or forced share.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Will contest</span>

A will contest, in the law of property, is a formal objection raised against the validity of a will, based on the contention that the will does not reflect the actual intent of the testator or that the will is otherwise invalid. Will contests generally focus on the assertion that the testator lacked testamentary capacity, was operating under an insane delusion, or was subject to undue influence or fraud. A will may be challenged in its entirety or in part.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pretermitted heir</span> Concept in property law

In the law of property, a pretermitted heir is a person who would likely stand to inherit under a will, except that the testator did not include the person in the testator's will. Omission may occur because the testator did not know of the omitted person at the time the will was written.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lapse and anti-lapse</span>

Lapse and anti-lapse are complementary concepts under the US law of wills, which address the disposition of property that is willed to someone who dies before the testator.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Simultaneous death</span> Issue in inheritance law

Simultaneous death is a problem of inheritance which occurs when two people die at, or very near, the same time, and at least one of them is entitled to part or all of the other's estate on their death. This is usually the result of an un-natural death occurring from events such as an accident, a homicide, or a murder-suicide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disclaimer of interest</span> Legal concept

In the law of inheritance, wills and trusts, a disclaimer of interest is an attempt by a person to renounce their legal right to benefit from an inheritance or through a trust. "If a trustee disclaims an interest in property that otherwise would have become trust property, the interest does not become trust property."

The Uniform Simultaneous Death Act is a uniform act enacted in some U.S. states to alleviate the problem of simultaneous death in determining inheritance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrator of an estate</span>

The administrator of an estate is a legal term referring to a person appointed by a court to administer the estate of a deceased person who left no will. Where a person dies intestate, i.e., without a will, the court may appoint a person to settle their debts, pay any necessary taxes and funeral expenses, and distribute the remainder according to the procedure set down by law. Such a person is known as the administrator of the estate and will enjoy similar powers to those of an executor under a will.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administration (probate law)</span> Administration of an estate on death

In common-law jurisdictions, administration of an estate on death arises if the deceased is legally intestate, meaning they did not leave a will, or some assets are not disposed of by their will.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Laughing heir</span>

In the law of inheritance, a laughing heir is an heir who is legally entitled to inherit the property of a person who has died, even though that heir is only distantly related to the deceased, and therefore has no personal connection or reason to feel bereaved over the death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Advancement (inheritance)</span>

Advancement is a common law doctrine of intestate succession that presumes that gifts given to a person's heir during that person's life are intended as an advance on what that heir would inherit upon the death of the parent. Not to be confused with an advance of someone's expected distribution from an estate currently in probate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Estates of Deceased Persons Act 2011 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom altering the rules on inheritance in England and Wales.

The South African law of succession prescribes the rules which determine the devolution of a person's estate after his death, and all matters incidental thereto. It identifies the beneficiaries who are entitled to succeed to the deceased's estate, and the extent of the benefits they are to receive, and determines the different rights and duties that persons may have in a deceased's estate. It forms part of private law.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 ""Arizona's Slayer Statute: The Killer of Testator Intent" by Adam D. Hansen". bepress.com.
  2. ↑ Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117U.S. 591, 600 (1886).
  3. ↑ Riggs v. Palmer, 22 N.E. 188, 191-93(1889)
  4. ↑ The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 478.
  5. ↑ John W. Wade, Acquisition of Property by Wilfully Killing Another - A Statutory Solution, 49 Harv. L. Rev. 715 (1936).
  6. ↑ “An individual who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent forfeits all benefits under this [article] with respect to the decedent's estate, including an intestate share, an elective share, an omitted spouse's or child's share, a homestead allowance, exempt property, and a family allowance. If the decedent died intestate, the decedent's intestate estate passes as if the killer disclaimed his [or her] intestate share.” § 2-803. Effect of Homicide on Intestate Succession, Wills, Trusts, Joint Assets, Life Insurance, and Beneficiary Designations., Unif. Probate Code § 2-803.
  7. ↑ See Anne-Marie Rhodes, Consequences of Heirs’ Misconduct: Moving from Rules to Discretion, 33 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 975, 980 (2007).
  8. 1 2 Piel, Jennifer (September 1, 2015). "Expanding Slayer Statutes to Elder Abuse". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 43 (3): 369–376. PMID   26438815 – via jaapl.org.
  9. ↑ 23 Am. Jur. 2d Descent and Distribution § 50.
  10. ↑ "In the Bedroom". msnbc.com.
  11. ↑ "Fatal Visions". msnbc.com.
  12. ↑ "48 Hours Mystery: Deadly Prophecy". cbsnews.com. 31 October 2009.
  13. ↑ ABC News. "Faylene Grant: Death by Drowning or Murder?". ABC News.
  14. ↑ "San Tan Valley woman dies after husband shoots family, self | azfamily.com Phoenix". Archived from the original on 2012-08-22. Retrieved 2013-06-07.
  15. ↑ Piel, Jennifer (2015-09-01). "Expanding Slayer Statutes to Elder Abuse". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 43 (3): 369–376. ISSN   1093-6793. PMID   26438815.
  16. ↑ K.S.A. 59-513.
  17. ↑ Cook v. Grierson, 380 Md. 502 (2004).
  18. 1 2 790 S.W.2d, 462, 463 (Mo. 1990).
  19. ↑ Texas Estates Code §201.058.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.