Trusts & Estates: Killing an Inheritance

TRUSTS & ESTATES

When he died in Vermont in 1961, Howard Mahoney left neither a will nor children. As a result, the state laws of descent seemed to entitle his surviving wife to all of his tiny $4,000 estate. But Charlotte Mahoney did not get a cent; a probate court gave everything to his parents. Reason: Charlotte had been tried for Howard's gunshot murder, convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to a maximum 15 years' imprisonment.

Since Vermont statutes do not cover such situations, the probate court merely invoked the old common-law rule that a slayer shall not profit from his crime. Charlotte stubbornly appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court on the ground, among others, that the rule applied only to heirs convicted of murder—not manslaughter.

In a Solomon-like decision, the high state court has just upheld Charlotte's claim to the estate. Yet she still gets nothing. After pondering precedents in other states, the court has pinpointed three relevant rules:

¶ The slayer gets his inheritance because denial would unconstitutionally impose an additional punishment for the crime.

¶ The slayer gets nothing—a rule sometimes criticized as "unwarranted judicial legislation."

¶ The slayer is made a "constructive trustee," receiving full title to the estate—while the victim's other heirs get all of the actual benefits.

After choosing the third alternative, the Vermont court explained: "The slayer should not be permitted to improve his position by the killing, but should not be compelled to surrender property to which he would have been entitled if there had been no killing." As for Charlotte's manslaughter argument, the court ruled that slayers convicted of involuntary manslaughter may fully inherit their victims' estates because the crime involves no intent to kill. Not so for those convicted of voluntary manslaughter, which does involve intent to kill. Result: Charlotte wins the title without the cash, which still goes to her late husband's parents.