Trusts & Estates
N.Y. 1995
Study notes for Barsotti v. Barsotti: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
A person who intentionally kills a decedent may not inherit from them, as per the slayer rule, which prevents unjust enrichment.
Barsotti v. Barsotti is a pivotal case in understanding the implications of the slayer rule within trust and estate law. The court examined whether a beneficiary accused of murder could retain their inheritance from the decedent, emphasizing the legal principle that one should not benefit from their wrongful acts. This case further illustrates the complexities involved in determining what constitutes 'felonious and intentional' killing in the context of inheritance rights, drawing distinctions between civil and criminal standards of proof.
A key aspect for students to grasp is the imposition of constructive trusts as a remedy in such cases, which serves to prevent unjust enrichment. Additionally, the court’s analysis of how slayer statutes apply to different forms of assets, such as life insurance and probate distributions, can provide invaluable insights into estate planning strategies, urging future practitioners to consider the implications of the slayer rule when advising clients.
SLAIN: Slayer Loses All Inheritances Naturally.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| In re Estate of Smith | In Smith, the court allowed inheritance from a life insurance policy despite accusations of murder due to lack of conviction, highlighting differences in statutory interpretation. |
| McCarty v. McCarty | Unlike McCarty, where the killer was barred from all distributions, Barsotti specifically addressed different types of assets under slayer statutes. |
| Sullivan v. Sullivan | In Sullivan, the court focused on the criminal conviction, while Barsotti clarified standards of proof in civil proceedings without a conviction. |
The slayer rule upholds public policy that no one should benefit from their wrongdoing, deterrence of crime, and the moral tenet of justice.
Opponents argue that the rule may lead to unjust outcomes where a person may be accused but not convicted, thus marginalizing due process rights in inheritance matters.
On exams, this case may be referenced to test understanding of the slayer rule and its application to estate planning, especially regarding assets like life insurance and trusts.