Hubbry Logo
Slayer ruleSlayer ruleMain
Open search
Slayer rule
Community hub
Slayer rule
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Slayer rule
Slayer rule
Slayer rule
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

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).

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.[citation needed]

Statutory response to slayers

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

The Strict Construction theory (the term Strict Construction being coined by legal scholar Adam D. Hansen in an effort to distinguish this approach from earlier common law cases that dealt with similar situations involving the disinheritance of slayers)[1] originated from Judge John Clinton Gray’s dissent in Riggs v. Palmer (1889).[2] Judge Gray argued that the criminal law already established punishment for slayers, and that denying a slayer the estate would, in effect, impose significant further punishment beyond what was prescribed by statute. In his view, this was not something the court was permitted to do without an express, written law. The court, he contended, could not simply create or imagine such statutes in order to reach 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.[3]

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.[4] In 1969, the Uniform Law Commission included No Profit theory language in its first promulgation of the Uniform Probate Code (UPC).[5] Forty-eight states have enacted laws that strip a slayer of any inheritance benefit he would have gained from his unlawful act.[6]

Regional details

[edit]

United States

[edit]

In the United States, most jurisdictions have enacted a slayer statute,[7] 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.[8]

Arizona

[edit]

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;[9] Douglas Grant;[10][11][12] and Gilbert Ramos)[13] 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.[citation needed]

Florida

[edit]

The Florida slayer rule prevents a murderer receiving the benefits they would otherwise be entitled to by the terms of the victim's will itself or by statute.[14] Although a murder conviction is sufficient to invoke the rule, it is not required, and the court has discretion to determine by the greater weight of the evidence whether the surviving person intentionally killed or contributed to the killing of the decedent for the purposes of applying the rule.[15]

Not only has Florida codified the slayer rule, but the Florida Statutes also contain a provision depriving a surviving person of the benefits of inheritance when convicted of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or the aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or a disabled adult.[16] However, conviction for the foregoing offenses only creates a rebuttable presumption, whereas a conviction for murder is conclusive for applicability of the slayer statute.

Illinois

[edit]

A person found guilty of financial exploitation, abuse or neglect cannot inherit any benefit from their victim.[17]

Kansas

[edit]

Kansas prohibits a slayer's inheritance where suicide is shortly after the murder.[18]

Maryland

[edit]

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.[19]

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

[edit]

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.[20] 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."[20] 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

[edit]

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.[21]

Washington

[edit]

A person found guilty of financial exploitation, abuse or neglect cannot inherit any benefit from their victim.[7]

United Kingdom

[edit]

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

South Africa

[edit]

The Roman-Dutch law of South Africa includes a similar principle known as de bloedige hand neemt geen erfenis (the bloody hand does not inherit).[22]

See also

[edit]
  • Riggs v. Palmer
  • Osete, Jesus (5 August 2017). "Extending the 'Slayer Rule' to Four-Legged Legatees". J. Animal & Envtl. L. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2720019. SSRN 2720019.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Slayer rule

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The slayer rule is a legal doctrine in U.S. inheritance and estate law that prohibits a person who feloniously and intentionally kills another from inheriting property, receiving benefits, or assuming fiduciary roles from the decedent's estate, treating the slayer as having predeceased the victim for distribution purposes. This principle ensures that no one profits from their own wrongful act, applying to a wide range of assets including those passing by will, intestate succession, trusts, joint tenancy, life insurance proceeds, and retirement accounts. Rooted in the equitable maxim that "no one shall profit by their own wrong," the slayer rule draws from English common law and was first articulated in American courts in the late 19th century. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Armstrong (1886) established the doctrine by denying recovery on a life insurance policy to the assignee who had murdered the insured, emphasizing public policy against allowing criminals to benefit from their crimes. By the early 20th century, states began codifying the rule through statutes, and today it is recognized in all 50 states—either by legislation in 48 jurisdictions or common law in the remaining two—to deter inheritance-motivated killings and align estate distribution with the decedent's intent. In practice, the slayer rule typically requires proof of an intentional or felonious killing, with a criminal conviction creating a conclusive presumption of disqualification in many states, though civil proceedings may use a lower preponderance-of-evidence standard if no conviction occurs. For instance, California's Probate Code § 250 explicitly bars slayers from testamentary gifts, intestate shares, and insurance benefits while disqualifying them from roles like executor or trustee. Exceptions apply to justifiable homicides, such as self-defense, and intent may be negated by factors like insanity, as seen in cases like Ford v. Ford, where the killer was found not criminally responsible due to insanity, allowing potential inheritance. Notable applications include the denial of benefits to convicted murderer Scott Peterson from his wife's estate following his 2005 conviction for her 2002 murder, underscoring the rule's role in high-profile probate disputes.

Overview

Definition

The is a that prohibits a person who feloniously and intentionally kills another from inheriting property or receiving any benefits from the victim's estate, including under wills, intestacy laws, trusts, or other instruments like policies. This core principle ensures that individuals cannot profit from their own criminal acts, applying broadly to scenarios where the killer would otherwise gain financially from the death. Under the rule's mechanism, courts typically treat the as having predeceased the victim, thereby disqualifying them from any or benefits and allowing assets to pass to alternate beneficiaries, heirs, or as if the never existed in the succession chain. This constructive predecease approach simplifies the distribution process while upholding the against wrongful gain. Key terms in the slayer rule emphasize the nature of the killing: it must be "felonious," meaning a felony-level offense such as , and "intentional," requiring deliberate intent to cause death, excluding (like ) or killings due to or accident, though application to other intentional felonies like certain manslaughters varies by . A criminal generally serves as conclusive proof of these elements, though civil proceedings may establish them absent prosecution. The rule's historical roots include biblical narratives illustrating the concept of "killing and inheriting," such as the story of Naboth's vineyard, which morally condemned such acts though ancient Jewish law permitted inheritance, contrasting with the modern equitable principles opposing profit from wrongdoing.

Rationale

The slayer rule is fundamentally rooted in the equitable principle that no one should profit from their own wrongdoing, a maxim articulated in the landmark case Riggs v. Palmer (115 N.Y. 506, 1889), where the New York Court of Appeals held that a murderer cannot inherit from their victim despite the absence of statutory prohibition, as allowing such enrichment would contravene basic justice. This ethical foundation draws from longstanding equitable doctrines, such as those in the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, which emphasize preventing unjust enrichment arising from criminal acts. By imposing constructive trusts on property that would otherwise pass to the slayer, the rule preserves legal title while denying beneficial interest, thereby upholding moral standards in property disposition without altering testamentary formalities. Public policy further underpins the rule by deterring homicides motivated by financial gain, as it eliminates or benefits as incentives for such crimes, aligning civil remedies with criminal sanctions to reinforce societal condemnation of . This deterrent effect, while sometimes viewed as a secondary benefit, serves to drain economic motivation from potential killings, as noted in applications where the rule disqualifies slayers to avoid "reproach to the " of permitting recovery from crimes like felonious death. Equitable considerations extend this by ensuring fairness to the victim's intended beneficiaries, redirecting assets to alternate heirs or the estate, thus honoring the decedent's wishes while preventing the slayer's windfall. On a broader societal level, the slayer rule reinforces the distinction between and civil law by allowing civil disqualification based on established criminal , without necessitating a separate retrial or relitigation of facts, thereby promoting efficiency and moral consistency in legal outcomes. This integration upholds public confidence in the justice system by treating the slayer's act as a forfeiting event in , distinct from punitive criminal measures, advancing corrective justice.

History

Common Law Origins

The slayer rule originated in medieval English common law through the doctrines of attainder, forfeiture of estate, and corruption of blood, which rendered a person convicted of a felony civilly dead and incapable of inheriting or transmitting property rights. These principles, dating back to at least the 13th century, ensured that felons, including manslayers, could not profit from their crimes by claiming estates upon the victim's death. The rule drew moral influence from biblical prohibitions against deriving benefit from bloodshed, such as Numbers 35:31, which forbids accepting ransom or compensation for a murderer's life to uphold the sanctity of . Initially, the rule applied narrowly to felonious and intentional killings in contexts of wills and intestate succession, barring the killer from any inheritance while allowing accidental or justifiable homicides to proceed unaffected. Over time, equity courts expanded its application to prevent , intervening where strict might permit a killer to retain benefits derived from the victim's estate. Courts developed the rule through considerations, emphasizing that no one should profit from their own —a maxim encapsulated in the Latin principle nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria. By treating slayers as civilly dead for purposes, judges forfeited their benefits to align civil remedies with moral imperatives, deterring potential crimes motivated by gain without imposing additional criminal penalties. In the United States, the slayer rule was first articulated in American courts in the late , drawing from English principles. The U.S. case Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Armstrong (1886) denied recovery on a policy to the beneficiary who murdered the insured, establishing the doctrine on grounds. The New York Court of Appeals in Riggs v. Palmer (1889) further solidified the rule by holding that a murderer could not inherit under his grandfather's will, invoking the maxim against profiting from one's wrong despite the will's explicit terms. These decisions laid the foundation for the rule's application in U.S. jurisdictions prior to statutory codification.

Statutory Developments

The transition from principles to statutory codification of the slayer rule began in the United States during the early , as states sought to provide clearer guidelines for disqualifying killers from . Colorado enacted one of the earliest slayer statutes in 1923, prohibiting a person who feloniously and intentionally kills another from acquiring any property, estate, or benefits from the victim's death, including under wills, , or joint tenancies. This legislation marked a shift toward explicit statutory prohibitions, influencing subsequent adoptions in other states like , which incorporated similar provisions into its around the same period. By the mid-20th century, the push for uniformity led to the development of model legislation. The Uniform Probate Code (UPC), promulgated in 1969 by the , included Section 2-803, which codified the slayer rule by treating a person who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent as having predeceased them for purposes of , revocable dispositions, and survivorship interests. This provision aimed to harmonize state laws and has been adopted or adapted in numerous jurisdictions, extending the rule's application beyond traditional probate assets to include proceeds and . Internationally, the slayer rule's principles spread through legislative reforms. In the , the Forfeiture Act 1982 codified the forfeiture rule, barring individuals who unlawfully kill another from acquiring any interest in the victim's estate, including under wills or on , while allowing courts limited discretion to modify the application in cases short of . Canadian provinces adopted statutory versions in the mid-20th century onward, such as Ontario's framework under the Succession Law Reform Act (1990, with roots in earlier reforms), which disqualifies killers from testamentary benefits and incorporates precedents to cover non-probate transfers. Recent legislative updates reflect evolving concerns over broader forms of wrongdoing. In 2024, amended its slayer statute via House Bill 1760 (Act 40), sponsored by Representatives Hanbidge and Schemel, to expand disqualification to convicted elder abusers, treating such individuals as predeceased for purposes and preventing them from profiting from victims' estates or related benefits. Post-2020 trends show jurisdictions increasingly including certain non-intentional killings, such as aggravated , within the rule's scope; for instance, Florida's 2021 amendments to its slayer statutes extended forfeiture to cases of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or aggravated of elderly or disabled adults, requiring return of acquired property. These statutes serve to standardize the slayer rule's enforcement, minimizing variations from judicial interpretations of and ensuring consistent outcomes across cases. By explicitly addressing non-probate assets like policies and accounts, they reduce discretion and promote equitable distribution to rightful heirs, reflecting against profiting from wrongdoing.

No Profit Theory

The No Profit Theory under the slayer rule, originating from the landmark case Riggs v. Palmer (115 N.Y. 506, 22 N.E. 188 (1889)), establishes a broad equitable principle that prohibits a person who feloniously kills another from deriving any financial benefit from the victim's death, irrespective of whether the killing was intended to secure such a benefit or directly resulted in it. This approach, rooted in public policy against rewarding wrongdoing, treats the act of killing as inherently disqualifying, ensuring that the slayer forfeits all interests that vest solely due to the death. The theory's application extends beyond direct to indirect benefits, such as the of contingent remainders in trusts—where a might otherwise advance in line to receive property upon the victim's death—or survivorship rights in jointly held property, like joint tenancy with right of survivorship. It also encompasses proceeds from policies naming the as , emphasizing that any gain causally linked to the killing is barred to prevent . Judicial support for the No Profit Theory is evident in cases like In re Estate of Mahoney, where the Vermont Supreme Court held that a wife convicted of manslaughter in her husband's death could not retain intestate inheritance, instead holding the property as a constructive trustee for the decedent's heirs under equitable principles. The court prioritized moral forfeiture over statutory limits, declaring that "no one shall be permitted to profit by his own wrong," even absent a murder conviction or profit motive. This theory offers advantages through its flexibility and policy orientation, allowing courts to adapt to varied scenarios while aligning with equity by deeming the killing a universal disqualifier, in contrast to the narrower Strict Construction Theory that confines disqualification to explicit statutory provisions.

Strict Construction Theory

The Strict Construction Theory, which emerged from Judge John Clinton Gray's dissent in (1889), interprets slayer rule statutes narrowly, limiting their application to circumstances explicitly outlined in the legislative text to prevent judicial overreach beyond the enacted law. This approach holds that slayer statutes, often viewed as in derogation of principles of , should be construed strictly to preserve traditional property rights unless the clearly intends otherwise. By adhering closely to statutory language, the theory ensures that the rule applies only where there is unambiguous prohibition of benefits to the slayer, avoiding expansive equitable remedies that might alter statutory boundaries. Central to this theory are requirements for clear proof of an intentional killing and a direct financial benefit prohibited by the , excluding cases of accidental, negligent, or unintentional deaths that fall outside the explicit scope. For instance, the must have acted with deliberate intent to cause death, and the benefit—such as or proceeds—must be one the expressly bars. This emphasis on textual precision demands rigorous evidentiary standards, often requiring a criminal conviction for or equivalent intent, rather than lesser offenses like . In , where constitutional prohibitions against corruption of blood further constrain application, courts apply these elements to uphold statutory limits over broader doctrines. Judicial examples illustrate this narrow focus, particularly in Texas cases that prioritize statutory fidelity. In Medford v. Medford (2002), the Texas Court of Appeals declined to impose a constructive trust on devised to a son who caused his mother's death, as he was convicted only of injury to an elderly person rather than , lacking evidence of specific intent to kill as required for the slayer rule's application. This decision underscored the theory's insistence on explicit statutory alignment, rejecting equitable expansion despite potential . Similarly, Texas jurisprudence emphasizes these limits to avoid violating by imposing forfeitures without clear legislative authorization. Critics of the strict construction theory argue that its rigidity curtails judicial flexibility in remedying egregious cases where a might indirectly profit, potentially allowing inequitable outcomes in borderline scenarios. However, proponents counter that this approach enhances predictability in and respects by deferring policy expansions to legislators, thereby safeguarding and avoiding arbitrary judicial interpretations. Unlike the broader No Profit Theory, which invokes general equitable principles to bar any gain from wrongdoing, strict construction confines remedies to statutory bounds.

Applications

In Inheritance and Wills

The slayer rule operates in the context of and wills to prevent individuals who feloniously and intentionally kill the decedent from benefiting from the victim's estate, ensuring that property passes to alternate or beneficiaries as intended. In proceedings, courts apply the rule to disqualify the slayer, treating them as though they predeceased the decedent, which redirects assets according to the will's terms or statutory succession laws. This is codified in statutes across most U.S. jurisdictions, such as Virginia Code § 64.2-2500, which bars slayers from acquiring any property or benefits as , beneficiaries, or successors. In cases involving wills, the slayer is disqualified as a , causing any specific bequest to them to lapse and fall into the or pass to contingent heirs named in the will. For instance, if a will devises directly to the slayer, that devise is invalidated, and the is redistributed to other or, absent alternates, according to rules applied to the residue. This treatment aligns with the Uniform Probate Code § 2-803, adopted in various states, which deems the slayer to have predeceased the for purposes of testamentary dispositions. Under intestacy laws, where no valid will exists, the slayer is similarly treated as having predeceased the decedent, excluding them from the line of succession and directing the estate's assets to the next eligible kin per state statutes of descent and distribution. Assets that would have gone to the slayer—such as a spousal share or children's portion—instead pass to other relatives, like siblings or parents, preventing the killer from profiting through default heirship rules. This application is standard in jurisdictions following the Uniform Probate Code, ensuring equitable distribution without the slayer's involvement. The extends to trusts, prohibiting distributions to the slayer from both revocable and irrevocable trusts established by the decedent. In revocable trusts, which function as will substitutes to avoid , the slayer's interest is revoked upon a finding of felonious killing, with trust property passing to beneficiaries as if the slayer predeceased the . For irrevocable trusts, the rule similarly bars post-killing benefits, such as income or principal distributions, to avoid , though pre-existing vested interests may require judicial intervention via constructive trust. State s, like those in , explicitly apply the rule to trust administration, disqualifying slayers from serving as trustees or receiving benefits. The process for enforcing the slayer rule in these contexts typically requires a court declaration of disqualification, often triggered by a criminal conviction for the killing, which serves as conclusive evidence in many states under the Uniform Probate Code § 2-803(g). However, even without conviction—such as in acquittals or unprosecuted cases—probate courts may make a civil determination by a preponderance of evidence that the killing was felonious and intentional, leading to disqualification. This judicial oversight ensures the rule's application during estate administration, with proceedings integrated into probate or trust litigation to resolve inheritance disputes efficiently.

In Insurance and Benefits

The slayer rule extends to non-probate assets, particularly policies, where a who feloniously and intentionally kills the insured is barred from receiving the death benefits. In such cases, the proceeds are distributed as if the predeceased the insured, typically passing to any contingent beneficiaries named in the policy or, if none exist, to the insured's estate. This application prevents the from profiting from the death, aligning with the rule's core principle, and has been upheld in various jurisdictions, including under for ERISA-governed group plans. The rule similarly applies to other death-related contractual benefits, such as , , and employee benefit plans. For instance, in qualified joint and survivor annuity (QJSA) benefits under ERISA pension plans, a spouse is disqualified from receiving survivor payments, with benefits redirected to contingent payees or the estate as determined by plan terms or . State statutes often mirror this treatment for non-ERISA and retirement accounts, treating the 's designation as ineffective ab initio and ensuring benefits flow to alternate recipients. In cases involving joint tenancies with right of survivorship, the slayer rule severs the joint interest upon the killing, converting it to a tenancy in common and preventing the slayer from acquiring the decedent's share through survivorship. The decedent's portion then passes according to their estate plan or laws, while the slayer retains only their original undivided interest, applicable to both real and . Enforcement of the slayer rule in these contexts often involves insurers or plan administrators filing actions to deposit funds with the court when faced with conflicting claims or suspicions of foul play, allowing judicial determination of eligibility. Courts void the slayer's beneficiary designation retroactively, treating it as never having existed, which facilitates payout to rightful parties without liability to the .

Exceptions and Limitations

The slayer rule generally does not apply to unintentional killings, such as those resulting from involuntary manslaughter or , as these lack the requisite to feloniously cause the decedent's death. Similarly, killings committed in are exempt, since they constitute rather than wrongful acts that would unjustly enrich the slayer. These exceptions preserve the rule's focus on preventing profit from intentional wrongdoing while avoiding overreach into excusable or non-culpable scenarios. Regarding innocent heirs, the children or of a may still inherit the disqualified portion of the estate in many jurisdictions, treating them as if the had predeceased the decedent, unless the applicable explicitly provides otherwise. This approach ensures that innocent family members are not penalized for the 's actions, aligning with favoring the decedent's likely intent to benefit close relatives. Procedural limitations on the slayer rule include the requirement in civil proceedings to prove the slayer's by a preponderance of the , rather than the higher criminal standard of beyond a . Additionally, some statutes restrict application to cases involving felony convictions for the killing, excluding lesser offenses or unadjudicated claims. Recent legislative trends have expanded the rule's scope to address , as seen in Pennsylvania's Act 40 of 2024, which amended the , Estates and Fiduciaries Code to bar individuals convicted of from inheriting from their victims. However, these expansions maintain exclusions for accidental deaths, reinforcing the rule's boundaries around intentional misconduct.

Jurisdictional Variations

The slayer rule is universally recognized in the , having been adopted in all 50 states through either statutory enactments or principles to prevent individuals from profiting from the wrongful killing of a decedent. Many states draw from the Uniform Probate Code (UPC) Section 2-803, which serves as a influential model by disqualifying a "slayer"—defined as one who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent—from inheriting under intestate succession, wills, trusts, or other property dispositions, while also revoking joint tenancies and beneficiary designations. This framework ensures equitable distribution by treating the slayer as having predeceased the victim in most cases, though applications vary by jurisdiction. At the federal level, the applies to ERISA-governed employee benefit plans, such as and retirement accounts, through equitable principles that prohibit a killer from receiving benefits, even if ERISA preempts conflicting state statutes. Courts invoke this doctrine to deny payouts to , aligning with the longstanding equitable maxim that no one should benefit from their own , as affirmed in cases involving survivor annuities and group life policies. State implementations exhibit notable variations in scope, required intent, and procedural thresholds, often expanding beyond to related offenses. applies the rule broadly under Probate Code Sections 250 et seq., disqualifying any person who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent from succession, joint property interests, or benefits, with no requirement for . applies the slayer rule primarily through principles, preventing by those who feloniously kill the decedent, with statutory provisions for specific contexts such as . In 2024, updated its slayer statute (20 Pa.C.S. §8802.1) via Act 40 to explicitly bar by those convicted of , broadening disqualification to non-homicide exploitation of vulnerable adults. The following table summarizes key state-specific provisions, illustrating diverse approaches:
StateStatuteKey Features
ArizonaA.R.S. §14-2803Forfeits benefits for felonious and intentional killing; emphasizes no unjust enrichment without explicit profit requirement.
FloridaFla. Stat. §732.802Disqualifies slayers for unlawful and intentional killing, extending to manslaughter convictions.
Illinois755 ILCS 5/2-6Disqualifies a person who intentionally and unjustifiably causes the death of another from receiving any property, benefit, or interest by reason of the death, proven by preponderance of evidence.
KansasK.S.A. §59-513Bars a person convicted of feloniously killing the decedent from inheriting by intestate succession, will, or as joint tenant.
MarylandMd. Code, Est. & Trusts §11-112Disqualifies a person who feloniously and intentionally kills, conspires to kill, or procures the killing of the decedent from inheriting or receiving benefits.
MissouriCommon lawApplies the slayer rule to bar felonious killers from inheriting, based on public policy against profiting from wrongdoing.
WashingtonRCW §11.84Treats slayer as predeceased for all purposes, including intestacy and non-probate assets; applies to intentional killings proven by preponderance.

United Kingdom

In , the slayer rule is codified primarily through the Forfeiture Act 1982, which enacts the forfeiture rule by deeming a person who has unlawfully killed another to have predeceased the victim for purposes of , proceeds, and benefits. The Act defines the "forfeiture rule" as a principle of that precludes such a person from acquiring any benefit resulting from the killing, including under a will, on , through trusts, or via policies and occupational pensions where the killer is named as . This applies to convictions for and , as well as civil findings of , ensuring that the killer cannot profit from their act. The Act provides courts with discretionary powers under Section 2 to modify or exclude the forfeiture rule's application in non-murder cases, allowing partial or full relief based on the conduct of the offender and deceased, as well as other relevant circumstances, to achieve a just outcome. However, Section 5 strictly excludes from this discretion, maintaining an absolute bar on benefits for those convicted of . Prior to the Act's enactment, the forfeiture rule was affirmed in cases like R v Chief Commissioner, ex parte Connor QB 758, where a convicted of was denied a widow's allowance, establishing that equity barred benefits from unlawful killings even without statutory intervention. In , the slayer rule operates primarily as a principle grounded in , preventing those who unlawfully kill from benefiting through succession, though it was partially codified in the Succession (Scotland) Act 2016, which treats the killer as having predeceased the victim for estate distribution purposes. Unlike , Scotland lacks a direct equivalent to the Forfeiture Act's broad discretionary relief mechanism, relying instead on judicial application of to forfeiture in inheritance matters, with the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 providing the foundational framework for intestate succession but not explicitly addressing unlawful killings. This approach emphasizes conceptual bars to profiting from crime without statutory modifications for insurance or pensions, though extends to such benefits. Northern Ireland follows a framework analogous to England and Wales under the Forfeiture (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which mirrors the 1982 Act by invoking the forfeiture rule to bar killers from inheritance, insurance, and pension benefits, with similar discretionary powers for non-murder cases. The Order deems the killer to predecease the victim and allows courts to adjust applications based on justice, excluding absolute relief for murder convictions, ensuring consistency across much of the United Kingdom while accommodating regional probate variations.

Other Jurisdictions

In , the slayer rule operates primarily as a principle that prevents individuals who unlawfully and intentionally cause the death of another from benefiting from the deceased's estate, whether through a will, , or other benefits such as insurance. This doctrine is applied uniformly across provinces, supplemented by provincial statutes in some jurisdictions; for instance, in , the Succession Law Reform Act codifies aspects of estate distribution but relies on for slayer disqualifications, ensuring consistency with the maxim that no one should profit from their own wrong. Courts assess based on criminal findings, treating the slayer as predeceased to redirect to alternate beneficiaries. Australia implements the slayer rule through state-based legislation modeled on forfeiture principles, prohibiting those guilty of unlawful killing from acquiring benefits from the victim's estate or superannuation. In , the Forfeiture Act 1995 explicitly applies the rule to offenses, including aiding , and extends to superannuation death benefits, with provisions for court modification if it serves justice, such as considering impacts on innocent dependents. Similar statutes exist in other states, like Victoria's administration of estates framework, reflecting adaptations to local financial systems while upholding anti-enrichment policies. In , the slayer rule is addressed through a combination of statutory provisions and judicial application of , varying by personal law applicable to religious communities. For , Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, explicitly disqualifies a murderer or abettor from inheriting the victim's property or any interest therein, treating the killer as civilly dead for succession purposes. Under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which governs Christians, , and others for testamentary and intestate succession, Sections 25 to 27 define for heirs but lack direct disqualification clauses; instead, courts invoke equity and to bar killers, as affirmed in cases like R. Singaperumal v. Vellikkannu, where the denied inheritance to a convicted abettor. This equity-based approach ensures moral consistency across diverse legal traditions. Civil law jurisdictions rarely codify a direct equivalent to the slayer rule, often addressing it through broader concepts of unworthiness to inherit rather than specific anti-killing provisions. In France, Article 726 of the Code Civil declares unworthy—and thus excluded from succession—any person convicted as perpetrator or accomplice in causing or attempting the death of the deceased, or seriously attacking their integrity, with the exclusion extending to fruits and income post-death. Similar mechanisms appear in other civil systems, such as Germany's Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch §§2339–2345, which declare unworthy (and thus excluded from succession) any person who intentionally and unlawfully kills the deceased. Emerging trends in select civil law countries incorporate anti-enrichment principles to prevent unjust benefit from wrongful death, though these remain implicit and case-driven rather than statutory mandates. Internationally, the slayer rule influences nations through inherited or adapted statutes, promoting uniform anti-profit principles without a dedicated model law. No global treaty exists on the topic, but human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 6 on the ), indirectly bolster prohibitions by underscoring state duties to deter benefits from violations of life, influencing domestic reforms in member states.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slayer_rule
  2. https://trustandwill.com/learn/slayer-statute
  3. https://www.clearcounsel.com/the-slayer-rule/
  4. https://www.naimishlewislaw.com/estate-planning/do-killers-inherit-understanding-californias-slayer-rule/
  5. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/117/591/
  6. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5517&context=klj
  7. https://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/cohen_000.pdf
  8. https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1252&context=acteclj
  9. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4543&context=wlr
  10. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5171&context=wlr
  11. https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1788&context=ublr
  12. https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/riggs_palmer.htm
  13. https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1995/93sc764-0.html
  14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1280583
  15. https://www.uniformlaws.org/viewdocument/final-act-with-comments-114?CommunityKey=a539920d-c477-44b8-84fe-b0d7b1a4cca8
  16. https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2023/hb1760
  17. https://bfmlaw.com/amendments-to-floridas-slayer-statutes/
  18. https://law.justia.com/cases/vermont/supreme-court/1966/126-vt-591-1.html
  19. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=journal-of-property-law
  20. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1068258.html
  21. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title64.2/chapter25/
  22. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PROB&sectionNum=250.
  23. https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/732.802
  24. https://www.nfp.com/insights/sixth-circuit-slayer-rule-applies-to-erisa-life-plans/
  25. https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/slayer-not-entitled-to-qjsa-benefit.pdf
  26. https://greenleaftrust.com/missives/slayer-statutes-and-erisa/
  27. https://www.texaslifeinsurancelawyers.com/texas-life-insurance-law-blog/2023/6/23/a-killer-cannot-receive-the-life-insurance-money
  28. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/indiana/inndce/2:2016cv00097/85775/135/
  29. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1544&context=journal_of_human_rights
  30. https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/In-re-Estate-of-Van-Der-Veen
  31. https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2019/title-45a/chapter-802b/section-45a-447/
  32. https://www.pahouse.com/Hanbidge/InTheNews/NewsRelease/?id=134719
  33. https://law.justia.com/codes/pennsylvania/title-20/chapter-88/
  34. https://estatelawstatenisland.com/slayer-rule-wills/
  35. https://loynolawreview.org/theforum/earning-or-losing-inheritance-via-behavior-a-survey-of-behavior-based-inheritance-laws-as-alternatives-to-the-united-states-common-laws-status-based-model5112024
  36. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=faculty_publications
  37. https://www.acebc.com/public-docs/writing-comp-papers/2021-OConnell-Christine-Reconciling-ERISA-Preemption.pdf
  38. https://www.archerestatelaw.com/in-the-news/pennsylvania-legislature-expands-slayer-statute-to-include-elder-abuse/
  39. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/14/02803.htm
  40. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/34/section/1
  41. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/forfeiture-rule
  42. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/34/section/2
  43. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/34/section/5
  44. https://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-chief-national-insurance-commissioner-ex-parte-connor-qbd-1981/
  45. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1964/41/contents
  46. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1982/1082/contents
  47. https://www.pallettvalo.com/whats-trending/the-slayer-rule-how-murder-impacts-estate-distribution/
  48. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-s26/latest/rso-1990-c-s26.html
  49. https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1995-065
  50. https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The_Forfeiture_Rule_consultation_paper_for_web.pdf
  51. https://ncwapps.nic.in/acts/TheHinduSuccessionAct1956.pdf
  52. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea77a1607dba36e9456055
  53. https://french-business-law.com/french-legislation-art/article-726-of-the-french-civil-code/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.