Chapter M. Offenses Barring Inheritance: The Slayer Or Abuser Statute
Jurisdiction | Washington |
Chapter 11.84 RCW, the so-called "slayer statute," or more formally the "slayer or abuser statute,"98 prevents someone who unlawfully and willfully kills or financially abuses another person from benefiting from his or her own wrong by inheriting the property of that person.99 This statute was adopted in response to the decision in In re Duncan's Estates,100 in which the court held that the statutes of descent and distribution required that the intestate's son be allowed to inherit even though he had murdered his father. The court held, in effect, that it did not have the power to modify the express language of the descent and distribution statutes.101
M.1. Slayers
The slayer statute's basic purpose is to prevent the slayer from benefiting from the death he or she wrongfully and intentionally caused.102 This is accomplished by treating the slayer as if he or she had predeceased the victim for purposes of distributing the victim's estate.103 To be declared a slayer for purposes of this statute, a person must have participated "either as a principal or an accessory before the fact, in the willful and unlawful killing of any other
[Page 25]
person."104 Because any action to enforce the slayer statute will be a civil action, the burden of establishing the elements set forth in the statute (unlawful killing and willfulness) is on the party attempting to use the statute to prevent the slayer from benefiting. The burden must be carried by a preponderance of the evidence.105 In Cook v. Gisler106 there was no question of willfulness, because the wife, who had killed her husband, admitted she had done so intentionally. A coroner's jury had found the killing justifiable on the basis of self-defense, but in a subsequent quiet title action brought by the wife, the lawfulness of the killing was questioned by the defendants. The court held that the defendants had the burden of establishing unlawfulness, and because there was evidence of self-defense, the defendants had not proven unlawfulness by a preponderance of the evidence.107
Although "[a] criminal conviction is not a [s]ine qua non to application of the Slayer's Act,"108 it is very likely determinative of the unlawfulness of the killing, and the conviction is specifically admissible in evidence under RCW 11.84.130. The question of willfulness can be more difficult to establish. For purposes of the slayer statute, "willful" is defined as "intentionally and designedly."109 A criminal conviction for the willful and unlawful killing of the decedent is conclusive evidence that a person is a "slayer" for purposes of the slayer statute, and in the absence of a criminal conviction a superior court finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a person "participated in" the willful and unlawful killing of the decedent is similarly conclusive.110 Even with an existing criminal conviction, however, the element of intent or willfulness may not have been proven. That was the case in New York Life Insurance Co. v. Jones,111 in which a woman had pleaded guilty to second-degree murder of her husband, and the insurance
[Page 26]
company had interpleaded the proceeds of a policy on the life of the husband. The court found that "willful" meant intentional, and that that definition applied whether in a civil or a criminal context. Because the second-degree murder conviction could have been based on a section of the homicide statute that did not require intent, the criminal conviction itself would not establish willfulness for purposes of the slayer statute. The secondary beneficiaries had the burden of showing willfulness by a preponderance of the evidence. The court suggested, however, that they would be aided by a presumption that a person intends the usual consequences of his or her actions.112
Even though a criminal conviction may be offered as evidence that an individual is a slayer in a civil action, the lack of a criminal conviction does not foreclose the possibility that one acted unlawfully.113 Thus a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity does not necessarily render an otherwise unlawful killing lawful for purposes of the slayer statute.114
The slayer statute applies to essentially all types of property interests that the slayer might receive as a result of killing the decedent. These property interests include reversions and vested remainders,115 property subject to divestment (and now remaining with the slayer),116 contingent remainders and future interests,117 powers of revocation or appointment,118 insurance proceeds,119 and even interests under a community property agreement.120 RCW 11.84.050 takes a special approach to jointly held property. Under joint tenancy, the slayer already owns an undivided interest in the property. By killing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial