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).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), 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."''Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117U.S. 591, 600 (1886).'' Other courts were reluctant to disinherit a slayer in absence of a legislatively codified statute directing the court to do so (Strict Construction theory).Strict Construction theory
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) originated from Judge John Clinton Gray’s dissent in '' Riggs v. Palmer'' (1889). 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. 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. In 1969, the Uniform Law Commission included No Profit theory language in its first promulgation of the Uniform Probate Code (UPC). Forty-eight states have enacted laws that strip a slayer of any inheritance benefit he would have gained from his unlawful act.Regional details
United States
In the United States, most jurisdictions have enacted a slayer statute, which codifies the rule and supplies additional conditions. Such laws have sometimes been construed narrowly because the relevant statutes areArizona
In 2012, theFlorida
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. 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. 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. However, conviction for the foregoing offenses only creates aIllinois
A person found guilty of financial exploitation, abuse or neglect cannot inherit any benefit from their victim.Kansas
Kansas prohibits a slayer's inheritance where suicide is shortly after the murder.Maryland
TheMissouri
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.790 S.W.2d, 462, 463 (Mo. 1990). 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." 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.Washington
A person found guilty of financial exploitation, abuse or neglect cannot inherit any benefit from their victim.United Kingdom
A similar principle in the United Kingdom is governed by the Forfeiture Act 1982.See also
*'' Riggs v. Palmer'' *References
{{DEFAULTSORT:Slayer Rule Wills and trusts Inheritance Murder