Imagine a family in Brooklyn receives devastating news. A father has died, and the circumstances are unclear. His will, drafted years ago, names his adult son as the sole beneficiary and executor. But as the family grieves, the police investigation takes a turn, and the son is charged in connection with his father’s death. Suddenly, the will is no longer a simple roadmap. It raises a profound legal and moral question: can someone responsible for a death profit from that very act?
The answer in New York is a firm no. This principle is the “slayer rule,” a cornerstone of equity in our estate law. You will not find it written into a statute book; it is a powerful common-law doctrine that has shaped how we handle wills and estates for over a century. For the family, this means the path through Surrogate’s Court just became far more complicated, requiring careful guidance to honor the true intent of the deceased.
The Legal Foundation: No Profit from Wrongdoing
The idea that a killer cannot inherit from their victim is common sense, but its legal roots in our state are deep. The defining moment came in 1889 with the New York Court of Appeals case, Riggs v. Palmer. The facts were stark: a grandson, aware he was a beneficiary in his grandfather’s will, poisoned the older man to prevent him from changing it and to accelerate his own inheritance.
The will was technically valid. The grandson was named. But the court established a fundamental principle that has guided us ever since: the law will not allow a person to acquire property by his or her own crime. The court essentially wrote the grandson out of the will, creating a legal fiction that he had died before his grandfather. The judges reasoned that the literal text of a statute should not produce an absurd or unjust result.
This single case—not a legislative act—forms the basis of our slayer rule. It empowers courts to look beyond the four corners of a will and impose a just outcome, ensuring an estate plan does not reward a terrible act.
How the Slayer Rule Operates in Surrogate’s Court
When this issue arises, the first question I am often asked is whether a criminal conviction for murder is required. The answer is no. While a criminal conviction settles the matter, the standard of proof in Surrogate’s Court is different. In a criminal trial, guilt must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In a civil proceeding concerning the estate, the standard is a “preponderance of the evidence”—meaning it is more likely than not that the beneficiary wrongfully caused the death.
This means an individual could be acquitted in criminal court yet still be barred from inheriting. The Surrogate’s Court can hold its own hearing to determine culpability for the purposes of distributing the estate.
What happens to the killer’s share? It doesn’t vanish or go to the state. The court treats the disqualified person as if they had predeceased the decedent. The inheritance is then distributed to the next person in line according to the will—the contingent beneficiary. If the will names no contingent beneficiary, the assets pass under New York’s intestacy laws to the decedent’s next of kin, again, skipping over the disqualified person.
This rule extends beyond wills. It applies to other assets that pass outside of probate, such as:
- Life Insurance Policies: A beneficiary who intentionally kills the insured cannot collect the death benefit.
- Retirement Accounts: The same principle applies to beneficiary designations on 401(k)s and IRAs.
- Jointly Owned Property: If two people own property as “joint tenants with right of survivorship,” the slayer’s right of survivorship is terminated. They may be entitled to their portion of the property, but they cannot take the decedent’s share.
Stewardship in the Face of Unthinkable Events
No one drafts a will thinking it will become evidence in a homicide investigation. But these extreme situations highlight why deliberate and intentional estate planning is an act of stewardship. A well-drafted plan does not just name a primary heir; it builds in contingencies for unforeseen—and sometimes unthinkable—events.
For example, a will should always name alternate beneficiaries. It should also name successor executors and trustees. When we work with families, we discuss the “what ifs.” What if your chosen heir cannot inherit, for any reason? By naming a clear line of succession, you provide the court with a clear path forward, reducing the potential for conflict among remaining family members during an already traumatic time.
The slayer rule is a legal backstop designed to prevent a grave injustice. It cannot, however, prevent the emotional and financial turmoil that accompanies such a tragedy. The best defense is a prudent, forward-thinking estate plan that accounts for multiple contingencies, ensuring your legacy is protected no matter what the future holds.
If you are an executor facing a challenge to a beneficiary’s eligibility, or if this discussion raises questions about the contingencies in your own estate documents, the next step is a confidential review. Schedule a consultation to discuss your fiduciary duties or to strengthen your own generational plan.
