Notes on Slayer Rule, Constructive Trusts, and Will Formalities

Slayer Rule, Constructive Trusts, and Will Formalities: Exam Notes

Context of discussion: Analyzing whether a killer (e.g., a son who murdered his parent) can inherit the decedent’s property, and what remedies or doctrines apply (slayer rule, constructive trust, and related equitable principles).

Key Concepts

Slayer rule: Generally, a person who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent cannot inherit from the decedent. Discussion references whether the killer should be barred from receiving the decedent’s property under the will or by intestate succession.
Constructive trust: Discussed as an equitable remedy that may prevent unjust enrichment or improper transfer of property when a person holds title to property that they should not rightfully possess (e.g., due to fraud or wrongdoing).
Totality of circumstances: Emphasis on considering the full context rather than a strict black-and-white rule when applying the slayer rule or constructing remedies.
Mercy killing/ euthanasia case: Mention of a note about a wife providing a gun to kill her husband and whether that conduct fits within the slayer rule; court’s view suggests it may not fit neatly and requires looking at intentionality and totality of circumstances.
Equitable vs. statutory approach: The speakers discuss whether statutes or equitable principles should govern outcomes, and whether a constructive trust can operate to prevent unjust transfer.

Inheritance and the Slayer Rule

The debate centers on whether the schizophrenic son could inherit if he killed Professor Salcedo, and how the court’s reasoning treats the decedent’s property in such cases.
One view: Property should not pass to the killer due to equitable principles; the court’s language suggests an equitable remedy rather than a simple statutory rule.
Another view: Constructive trust could be a viable remedy in the case to prevent the killer from obtaining the property.
The distinction between “will” transfers and intestate transfers is important; the rule might apply differently depending on whether the decedent’s will or intestate succession governs.
Justice Cardoso characterizes a constructive trust as the conscience of equity funding the remedy, implying it functions as a tool to prevent unjust results.

Constructive Trusts: Rationale and Application

Constructive trust defined as an equitable remedy used to prevent fraud or unjust enrichment where the legal title does not reflect rightful ownership.
The conversation suggests a constructive trust can prevent dual or conflicting claims to property (dual titles) and avoid fraudulent contracts or transfers.
The constructive trust remedy is discussed as a potential solution to ensure the killer does not unjustly obtain property that should be transferred to rightful heirs or beneficiaries.
Lawson’s totality approach is invoked to advocate for considering broader context rather than a rigid, binary outcome when applying constructive trusts.

Mercy Killing and the Slaying Rule

The notes discuss a mercy-killing scenario (wife providing the gun to husband to kill himself) and whether this falls under or outside the slayer rule.
The court found that this particular mercy-killing instance did not neatly fit within the slayer rule, suggesting that intentionality and overall circumstances must be examined rather than applying the rule mechanically.
This underscores the importance of evaluating whether the killing was intentional, and how that intent aligns with or diverges from the slayer rule’s rationale.

Writing, Evidence, and Formalities for Wills

The discussion includes contemplation of what constitutes valid written will and evidentiary standards:
- Writing and content: The content of the will matters; the formality can be secondary if the content and intent are clear.
- Signatures and witnesses: Traditional requirements (signature of the testator, witnesses) are mentioned as important for validity.
- Notarization: Notarization can provide additional verification, but not necessarily determinative of validity.
- Acknowledgment by a notary and potential for investigation: The role of a notary public in attestation is noted, as well as the possibility of additional investigation if needed.
- Video recording: Consideration given to whether a video recording of a testator could serve as evidence of testamentary intent.
Practical concern: The legal system’s demand for perfect will execution could lead to excessive resource use, frivolous challenges, and malpractice, creating a backlog.
The balance between ensuring integrity of testamentary documents and avoiding excessive procedural burdens is highlighted.

Fraud, Dual Titles, and Contractual Concerns

Dual titles in property or dual claims can arise when ownership is disputed due to improper transfers or unclear instruments.
The constructive trust is presented as a mechanism to avoid dual ownership disputes and the complexity of fraudulent contracts.
The aim is to ensure that property distribution reflects true ownership and intent, avoiding improper or fraudulent transfers.

Practical Implications and Policy Considerations

The discussion recognizes imperfections in legal systems: perfection is unattainable, and laws must adapt to human error.
There is a tension between strict rules (e.g., slayer rule) and equitable, case-by-case analyses (totality of circumstances) to reach fair outcomes.
The potential backlog of wills and probate litigation is acknowledged; there is a need to balance access to justice with the costs and resources required for litigation.
The ethical and practical implications of imposing constructive trusts or slayer-rule exclusions are debated, including how these tools affect dependents, mental health considerations, and family dynamics.

Connections to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance

Equity vs. strict legality: The debate exemplifies the tension between equitable remedies (constructive trusts) and rigid statutory rules (slayer rule).
Intent and accountability: The emphasis on intentionality and totality connects to foundational principles about fairness, moral culpability, and the proper allocation of property after death.
Real-world implications: In cases involving suspected murderers or suicide-related issues, courts must carefully analyze evidence, intent, and impact on rightful heirs.
Practical administration: The discussion highlights practical concerns for probate professionals about reducing frivolous challenges while protecting legitimate claims.

Questions and Debates Raised

When should a constructive trust be preferred over a hard rule like the slayer rule? What factors determine legitimacy and scope?
How should the law treat cases like mercy killing where intent is ambiguous or morally contested? Does the slayer rule capture the relevant concerns, or is a totality-of-circumstances approach more appropriate?
To what extent should wills be allowed to be authenticated through non-traditional means (e.g., video recordings) without compromising integrity and preventing fraud?
How can courts balance the need to prevent fraud and wrongful retention of property with the need to avoid excessive litigation and backlog in probate courts?
What constitutes sufficient writing and evidence to satisfy will formalities in the absence of traditional signatures or witnesses?

Takeaway

In inheritance disputes involving potential killers, courts may rely on constructive trusts and equitable principles to prevent unjust transfer, while also considering the totality of circumstances rather than rigidly applying the slayer rule.
Will formalities and evidentiary standards are crucial, but practical considerations (backlog, cost, and human error) must be acknowledged and addressed through careful, flexible jurisprudence.