A family in Queens gathers to read their father’s will. It seems straightforward—he left his home and investment accounts to his only son. But there is a dark cloud over the proceedings. The father’s death was not from natural causes, and that same son is the primary suspect. This is the kind of tragic situation where a fundamental legal principle, older than most statutes, comes into play: the slayer rule.
It’s a rule grounded in the most basic sense of justice. No one should be allowed to profit from their own monstrous act. In my practice, I’ve seen how this doctrine can be the last line of defense for a family’s legacy, ensuring that assets are stewarded by those who honor the deceased, not those who harmed them.
The Foundation: A 19th-Century New York Case
The slayer rule isn’t a modern invention. Its roots in New York law are deep, solidified by the landmark 1889 Court of Appeals case, Riggs v. Palmer. In that case, a young man named Elmer Palmer, knowing he was a beneficiary in his grandfather’s will, poisoned him to prevent his grandfather from changing it. The will was valid. The statute of wills at the time had no explicit exception for beneficiaries who murder the testator.
The court faced a dilemma: follow the letter of the law and reward a murderer, or enforce a higher principle? They chose the latter. The court famously declared, “No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.”
This decision established the common law foundation for the slayer rule in New York. It stands for the principle that our legal system is built not just on written statutes—but on fundamental maxims of equity and public policy. The court essentially wrote an exception into the law where the legislature had been silent.
How the Rule Works in Surrogate’s Court
When a beneficiary is accused of causing the decedent’s death, the matter is heard in Surrogate’s Court. The burden of proof is a critical distinction. A criminal conviction for murder or manslaughter is conclusive, but it is not required.
The slayer rule can be invoked in a civil proceeding, where the standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence,” not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for a criminal conviction. This means the court must be convinced that it is more likely than not that the beneficiary wrongfully caused the death. An acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically prevent the slayer rule from being applied in a civil inheritance dispute.
If the court finds the slayer rule applies, the law treats the killer as if they had died before the victim. This is a critical legal fiction. The inheritance doesn’t just vanish—it passes to the next eligible beneficiary named in the will or, if there isn’t one, to the decedent’s other heirs according to New York’s intestacy laws. The killer is simply written out of the line of succession.
Codified Law and Its Limits
While Riggs v. Palmer provides the common law backbone, the state legislature has codified the principle in certain areas. For example, Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) § 4-1.6 addresses jointly owned property. This statute explicitly prevents a person convicted of murdering their spouse or other joint tenant from inheriting the decedent’s share of a joint bank account or jointly owned real estate.
The statute is narrow. It applies to specific property types and requires a criminal conviction. The common law rule from Riggs remains vital because it provides a broader tool for assets not covered by statute, like those passed through a will or trust.
This contrast shows how estate law functions. It is built from both specific statutes and broad, time-tested principles of equity. Protecting a family’s intentions requires understanding both.
While the slayer rule addresses one of the darkest possible contingencies, it highlights the importance of deliberate planning. A well-drafted estate plan anticipates potential complications, from a beneficiary’s premature death to their disqualification. If this topic raises questions about the strength of your own beneficiary designations, we can schedule a review to stress-test your existing will or trust and confirm your legacy is protected against the unexpected.
