Wills, Trusts, & Slayer Statute

Question 1

Jones v. Narendra (1935)

Answer 1

A person’s heirs (by will or intestate) are not determined until a person dies. For that reason, a
person who makes a will has complete liberty to change or revoke that will until the person dies.
A revoked will has no legal effect and is treated as if it never existed. An unexecuted will likewise
has no legal effect.

Question 2

Brock v. Blom (1965)

Answer 2

For purposes of MRS 41B.200(b), a relevant conviction is any conviction in a U.S. criminal court
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was involved in or responsible for the death of
the decedent. Such convictions include murder, manslaughter, conspiracy to commit murder
(where the victim did die), and aiding and abetting any of the aforementioned crimes. Absent a
relevant conviction, the only way to trigger the provisions of MRS 41B.200(a) is through a Slayer
Statute proceeding under MRS 41B.200(c).

Question 3

Maloney v. Soucar (1974)

Answer 3

Because a Slayer Statute proceeding is a civil proceeding with a lower burden of proof than a
criminal trial, an acquittal, hung jury, or lack of criminal charges against the defendant does not
preclude a Slayer Statute proceeding. Additionally, evidence of acquittal, hung jury, or lack of
criminal charges against the defendant is inadmissible as misleading under MRE 403 given the
differing burdens of proof.

Question 4

Caltry v. Bridgeman (1985)

Answer 4

The key question in a Slayer Statute proceeding is whether the defendant was a “culpable actor”
in the death of the decedent. There are three ways to establish that the defendant was a culpable
actor: (1) the defendant knowingly caused the death of the decedent; (2) the defendant purposefully
caused the death of the decedent; or (3) the defendant facilitated the death of the decedent. In a
Slayer Statute proceeding, a plaintiff is free to pursue any or all theories of culpability.

Question 5

Salter v. Kidwai (1992)

Answer 5

A person acts “knowingly” when they do something that they are practically certain will cause a
particular outcome. A person acts “purposefully” when they do something with the expectation
that their actions will cause a certain result. In a Slayer Statute proceeding where the plaintiff is
attempting to establish the defendant knowingly or purposefully killed the decedent, a plaintiff is
not required to show the defendant killed the decedent because the defendant wanted to obtain the
decedent’s money or property. The Slayer Statute renders people ineligible to inherit because of
what they did, not why they did it. That said, a person’s motive (or lack of motive) to take a
particular action is likely relevant for other purposes.

Question 6

Bearinger v. Rajan (2009)

Answer 6

The defendant need not be the decedent’s actual killer in order to be a culpable actor in the death
of the decedent. The defendant can also be a culpable actor if they facilitated the death of the
decedent. A defendant facilitates the death of the decedent when the defendant knowingly or
purposefully aids, abets, commands, counsels, encourages, hires, induces, procures, or solicits
another person (or persons) to knowingly or purposefully kill the decedent.

Question 7

Martinez v. Martinez (2015)

Answer 7

Where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant facilitated the death of the decedent, it is not
necessary for the plaintiff to establish the identity of the person or persons who worked with the
defendant in order to prevail in a Slayer Statute proceeding. So long as the plaintiff establishes the
defendant facilitated the death of the decedent, the plaintiff can prevail. That said, evidence of the
person or persons who worked with the defendant—including identity and motive—is still
nonetheless relevant in a Slayer Statute proceeding