Is violent crime the only way?
Francis B. Palmer created a Last Will and Testament in which he set out that he would leave a small legacy to his daughters and the rest of his estate, which was quite substantial, to his grandson Elmer. Francis remarried and Elmer became worried. Elmer, who was only sixteen (16) years old at the time, knew that he was due a large inheritance from his grandfather. Elmer was concerned that since his grandfather had remarried he would change his “Will” and leave everything to his new wife instead of to Elmer. So Elmer murdered his grandfather.
Elmer was subsequently convicted of the murder and the Last Will and Testament was contested by Francis’ daughters. Francis daughters were of the view that since Elmer killed their father and he did so with the specific intent of benefiting he should not get anything from the Last Will and Testament. Elmer was of the view that the letter of the law is clear: the law specifically states how a Last Will and Testament is to be created. The Will in question provides that he should get his money irrespective and there is nothing in the law to contradict this.
The above fact pattern and issues were real and emanate from the New York case of Riggs v. Palmer in 1889.[1] One of the judges agreed with Elmer and pointed out that “…the matter does not lie within the domain of conscience. We are bound by the rigid rules of law, which have been established by the legislature, and within the limits of which the determination of this question is confined. The question we are dealing with is weather a testamentary disposition can be altered, or a will revoked, after the testator’s death, through an appeal to the courts, when the legislature has by its enactments prescribed exactly when and how wills may be made, altered, and revoked, and apparently, as it seems to me, when they have been fully complied with, has left no room for the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction by courts over such matters.”[2]
Ultimately the court disagreed with Elmer and Justice Gray and ruled that Elmer could not inherit. Justice Earl noted that “It was the intention of the law-makers that the donees in a will should have the property given to them. But it never could have been their intention that a donee who murdered the testator to make the will operative should have any benefit under it.”
Fortunately Arizona law agrees and states that “[a] person who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent forfeits all benefits under this chapter. . .”[3]
Kevin Breger is the principal attorney at The Law Offices of Kevin Breger, PLLC. Mr. Breger focuses exclusively on criminal law and DUI representation and can be reached at 602-682-5582 or at kbreger@bregerlaw.com. Remember if you do email Mr. Breger please provide a phone number where he can call you back at to discuss your situation. Mr. Breger’s principal office is located at 2025 N. 3rd Street, Suite 157, Phoenix, AZ 85004 and he also has an address in Scottsdale. He represents clients throughout Maricopa County, Pinal County and Yavapai County.
The information in this article is current as of January 2009. Remember that all cases need to be assessed on their individual merits and you should consult your attorney to discuss the specific issues in your case.
