Posts

Death & Estate Planning: The Slayer Rule

,
slayer rule

In honor of Halloween, I thought it appropriate to explain the ominous-sounding principle of the slayer rule. [Cue a full moon, bats, and a high-pitched cackle here.]

It’s a plot you may come across in murder novels or movies: someone kills someone else in order to inherit money, a house, artwork, or anything else of assumed value. Or, in some cases, the intent might not specifically be an inheritance, but nevertheless, the “slayer” will inherit as a result of the other’s death.

This scheme hits at very core of what most people think is unfair and unjust–why should someone who cuts another’s life short be entitled to benefit from their criminal act? This is why most states have adopted “slayer statutes.”

For example, Iowa adopted such a law (Iowa Code § 633.535) in 1987. It says primarily:

A person who intentionally and unjustifiably causes or procures the death of another shall not receive any property, benefit, or other interest by reason of the death as an heir, distributee, beneficiary, appointee, or in any other capacity whether the property, benefit, or other interest passed under any form of title registration, testamentary or nontestamentary instrument, intestacy, renunciation, or any other circumstance. The property, benefit, or other interest shall pass as if the person causing death died before the decedent.

Note that states differ as to specific provisions and different factors like considerations of an insanity defense, and whether or not a slayer’s heirs are also disinherited. The information in the blog post is meant to speak generally. For slayer rule specifics, it’s important to consult with an experienced attorney in the jurisdiction in question.

Main Principles of the Slayer Rule

Generally speaking, the principle of the rule is that an estate plan beneficiary cannot inherit any property, fiduciary appointment, or power of appointment from a testator who the beneficiary intentionally and feloniously kills. The rule also applies if the beneficiary kills someone else (besides the testator) who had to die before they could inherit. In the case of an estate planning document (like a will), the entire will is interpreted by the court as if the slayer died before the testator. (This causes the gifts to said slayer-beneficiary to lapse.)

What if there is no will? The slayer rule still applies. So in the case of non-probate transfers (like a trust or a checking account with a beneficiary designation) the slayer could not inherit. The same goes if the slayer is an heir at law set to inherit under the state’s intestacy laws.

Legal Phrase of the Day: “Heirs at Law”

What Kind of Killing Triggers the Slayer Rule?

Typically the killing must be: 1) intentional; 2) felonious; and 3) without legal justification, like valid self-defense. Murder and some forms of manslaughter (such as voluntary manslaughter) tend to fulfill these requirements. Negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter typically won’t qualify, as the slayer lacks the required element of intent.

The Scary Tale of What Makes a Will Valid

For example, let’s say Anna has a son named Billy. Anna’s husband (Billy’s father) had passed away previously and Billy was set to inherit his mother’s entire estate under her will. Billy loved his mom and liked to make sure she still got out and did fun things in her older age. One night Anna and Billy go out to dinner and order some wine. Billy drinks a bit too much, but because his mother’s eyesight is impaired, Billy still chooses to drive his mother home even though he’s impaired. The car crashes and Anna, unfortunately, dies as a result, but Billy lives. Even if drunk driving is a felony in the jurisdiction, Billy lacked the intent element as there’s no evidence that shows he intended to kill Anna. Thus, the slayer statute would not prohibit Billy from inheriting Anna’s estate.

Does There Have to be a Trial and a Conviction?

For the slayer rule to come into play, there doesn’t need to be a criminal trial or a criminal conviction. It is enough for a civil litigation court to find the slayer responsible for the other’s death by a preponderance of the evidence. Interestingly enough, even if an alleged slayer is acquitted of a crime, it does not stop the civil court from applying the slayer rule and barring the inheritance.

That said, if there is a final, unappealable criminal conviction finding the killing to be intentional and felonious, it would establish all the requirements of the slayer rule. There would be no other need for other proof because such a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Spooktacular Savings on Probate Fees

 Smart Estate Planning 

Of course, the odds that the slayer rule will apply to most of our estates is (thankfully) extremely rare. But it’s analogous to a more common situation — the beneficiary dying before the testator. An issue that then complicates donative intent is if the testator fails to or doesn’t have time to update their estate plan and there’s no remainder (or back-up) beneficiary to inherit instead. When working with an experienced estate planner it’s a wise idea to name secondary beneficiaries, as well as “back-up” will executors or trust trustees. That way distribution or administration of your hard-earned assets is not left up to the court.

Beneficiaries, Executors, and Guardians, Oh My!

Questions about the slayer rule or other somewhat obscure estate planning laws? Need to get started on your estate plan? Don’t hesitate to contact me for a free consult!

/by

Legal Phrase of the Day: “Heirs at Law”

, , ,
Heirs at law on beach

Before I explain the concept of “heirs at law,” you might be thinking, why even bring this up? Of what relevance is this “Ye Olde Sounding Phraise” in today’s modern world?

It’s important for me to share the concept of “heirs at law” with you, dear GoFisch blog Reader, for three reasons.

  1. It helps explain why I, and other estate planners, ask so many darn questions. We need lots of info.
  2. The concept of “heirs at law” shows that you need to be open and honest and forthcoming with me, or any estate planner. Without complete transparency and truth, the estate plan runs the risk of being useless (the idea of “garbage in, garbage out” applies here).
  3. “Heirs at law” is yet another reason that a DIY will, or using an online service to produce your will, is just a terrible idea. You need an estate plan crafted by a trusted professional, unique to your special needs. Every family is different, so there can be no “one-size-fits-all” estate plan, and there are many moving parts to a comprehensive estate plan.

With that established, what does the term “heirs at law” actually mean?

Heirs at law are those folks who would inherit your property in the event you died without a will, which is called intestacy.1 It is critically important to determine who the heirs at law are, even for people not subject to the laws of intestacy (i.e., folks who have a will) for two big reasons.

  1. Heirs at law must be notified of the probate process.
  2. Heirs at law are allowed to challenge the will in probate court.

All in the (sometimes complicated) family

As I already stated, it’s a wise idea to work with your estate planner and provide all the information requested. As a practical matter, the extent of information you’ll need to provide your estate planner regarding heirs at law depends of the nature of your family and relatives. For instance, in the case of two people, married only to each other, with children only from that one marriage—then the spouse and children (and perhaps grandchildren) will be the obvious heirs at law.

In another example, a family could also constitute a remarriage with each spouse having children from previous relationships. In this case, the stepchildren would need to be adopted by the applicable stepparent to be considered an heir at law.

In other situations, the client relatives may be much more distant, requiring more fact investigation. For example, take the case of a client who is unmarried and without children. In such a situation, the estate planner will need to pay close attention to identifying other relatives.

The Importance of Discussing Your Estate with Your Family

Of course, with an estate plan you can bequeath your estate to whomever you choose. You don’t have to give anything to any of your obvious or non-obvious heirs at law or any other relative for that matter. (In colloquial terms we could call this “stiffing your relatives.”) Although with that said, you cannot choose to disinherit a spouse.

This point reiterates why the estate planner should know and have updated contact information of who are the heirs at law. Again, it’s required that heirs at law be notified of probate process and these heirs (unlike a non-relative work colleague or neighbor) also have the legal standing to contest the will in court.

Avoid the Worst Case Scenario: Litigation over an Estate Plan

Another reason the estate planner must have knowledge of the heirs at law is to ward off fraudulent claims if need be. This reason is particularly important if the heirs at law are distant relatives. (An unfortunate real-world example of this involves Prince and the complicated intestate process following the singer’s passing without an estate plan.)

Bottom line: heirs at law are important when it comes to the distribution of your estate (with or without a will). Of course, dying intestate is NOT optimal and you DO need a will for a number of important reasons. I’d love to discuss the topic over the phone (515-371-6077) or via email. Don’t hesitate to contact me at any time!

[1] Bonus word! If an Iowan dies without a valid will, they die “intestate” and the laws of “intestate” succession are used to determine who will inherit the estate.

/by

The Howard Hughes Estate: A Cautionary Tale

,
movie camera

I was scrolling through Netflix the other night and finally landed on The Aviator, which I haven’t seen in a while. The 2004 Scorsese film starring Leonardo DiCaprio tells the story of the eccentric aviation magnate and movie producer, Howard Hughes, who tragically battled OCD, paranoia, and chronic pain (from a near-death plane crash) and spent his later life as a hermit. That led me down a rabbit hole of internet research into the real Howard Hughes. As an estate planner, I naturally wondered what happened to his estate when he passed away in 1976. (Perhaps fittingly the aviator passed away in an airplane.)

Even if You’re Not a Billionaire, You Need an Estate Plan

Unfortunately, the tale of the Hughes estate is a cautionary one of what NOT to do.

Terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea of NOT having a Will

Hughes—who was reputed to be one of the wealthiest men in the world—died intestate, meaning he died without a valid will. That can cause chaos, confusion, and cost ample time and money for regular folks. But, when your estate is worth billions like Hughes’ was, it causes a mass tangle of court proceedings. In the case of the Hughes estate, debate and disputes lasted a total of 34 years.

In the aftermath of his death, several documents were brought forth alleging to be the magnate’s will. All were deemed to be forgeries. A Nevada court determined Hughes died intestate, meaning the law determines how assets are distributed to heirs-at-law. However, Hughes died divorced (allegedly) and without any close relatives; he left no clear heir(s). This debacle of no will meant that many people came out of the woodwork claiming to be relatives.

5 Celebrities With Crazy Estate Plan Provisions

A Messy Web of Forgeries, Fraud, & Litigation

So, after years of attorneys, courts, and dubious claims, what actually transpired?

Eventually, $2.5 billion was split between 22 of Hughes legal cousins in 1983. (Undoubtedly he didn’t know some or even the majority of these people. It’s also been said he didn’t want his money to go to his distant relatives, but without an estate plan, his wishes were steamrolled by probate law.) In an interesting twist, a woman named Terry Moore came forth claiming she married Hughes on a boat in international in 1949 and that they were never divorced. She didn’t produce any proof of the marriage (like a marriage certificate), but the estate paid her a $400,000.

The Supreme Court even had to step in. They ruled in the messy dispersion of assets that the Howard Hughes Medical Institute owned Hughes Aircraft, which it then sold off in 1985 to General Motors for more than $5 billion. The Court also rejected lawsuits brought by Texas and California, claiming they were owed inheritance taxes, but the suits were eventually put to rest with settlements of $50 million and $150 million respectively in property and/or cash.

In 2010, more than three decades after Hughes passed, the last slice of Hughes pie (Summerlin residential development community near Las Vegas) was liquidated.

Think Estate Planning is Just for the Wealthy? Think Again!

Leave a Valuable Legacy

Undoubtedly, Hughes left his mark on 20th century American history. However, his legacy could have been cemented in the way he wanted (probably giving the bulk of his estate to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and nothing to long lost cousins) if he would have had a proper estate plan created completed with valuable strategic tools like different trusts and charitable giving vehicles. While most of us will never have an estate valued even close to the likes of Hughes, we can be smart with what we do have and make certain what we choose is dispersed to whom we choose, when we choose. There’s no need for your assets to be tied up in red tape or be dispersed in a way that’s not fitting with your wishes.

5 Celebrities Who Died Without a Will

Contact me with your estate planning questions, or get started with my free, no-obligation Estate Plan Questionnaire, which will help you organize important information needed for the plan in one place.

/by