Innocent Heirs Not Disinherited

The Delaware Court of Chancery dealt with a question of first impression in the State, i. e., whether the so-called Slayer Statute operates to disinherit a killer’s heir

Answer: no.

Almost seventy years ago, on August 4, 1955, a tragedy occurred. Norris Cordray killed his wife, Emma, then himself. A child of that marriage, George, a resident of New Castle County, passed away in 1988, intestate. An estate was opened in 1988; for reasons not pertinent here, the estate remains open. Last July, the administrator of George’s estate, Robert Lane (the “Administrator”) brought the Petition for Instructions at issue here. The Petition seeks instructions as to George’s heirs, a matter to be determined under the Delaware statutes concerning intestate succession, set out at Chapter 5 of Title 12. George died without a wife, and without issue. He had a lone sibling, a brother, Norris Jr., living at the time of his death, who is now himself dead—Norris Jr. ostensibly renounced his interest in George’s estate and then died without issue. George had no other siblings.

Vice Chancellor Glasscock

Here, the estate in question is that of George, who is not a slayer; and not the estate of his father Norris. No Delaware case supports employing the slayer doctrine to disinherit next of kin, with the exception of the slayer himself, or those who would take through the slayer’s estate.

Thus

The next of kin of George in Norris’s lineage are inheriting from George because under the statute of intestacy they are entitled to, and would be regardless of the slaying. Emma and Norris were born in 1905 and 1904, respectively. Had they lived out their biblical span of three score and ten, then passed away peacefully in the mid-1970s, the heirs of George would be exactly the same as determined here. Allowing those heirs to inherit therefore gives no incentive to murder, the Administrator’s argument notwithstanding.

The Slayer Statute is expressly non-penal in nature. Since George’s next-of-kin are innocent of wrongdoing in the murder of Emma, and because they do not stand to benefit from her murder, disinheriting them as the Administrator suggests would be punitive. Such would be inconsistent with the text of the Statute and its animating spirit.

(Mike Frisch)