Trusts & Estates

Clymer v. Mayo — Study Notes

Clymer v. Mayo, 393 Mass. 754, 473 N.E.2d 1084 (Mass. 1985)

Study notes for Clymer v. Mayo: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

The slayer rule prevents a murderer from benefiting from a revocable inter vivos trust, treating the murderer as having died before the decedent.
Professor Notes

In Clymer v. Mayo, the court addressed the implications of the slayer rule, which bars individuals who commit murder from benefiting from the victim's estate. This case is pivotal as it illustrates how the law seeks to prevent unjust enrichment of a wrongdoer, particularly in the context of revocable inter vivos trusts. Students should understand the differentiation between probate and nonprobate transfers, as well as the specific application of equitable remedies such as constructive trusts in these contexts.

Additionally, the decision emphasizes the treatment of the killer as having predeceased the decedent for the purpose of distributing the estate, thereby allowing alternate beneficiaries to receive their intended benefits without delay. Professors will likely highlight the balance between upholding individual rights in estate planning while safeguarding the integrity of the legal system from malefactors who seek to profit from their heinous acts.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1Describe the facts of Clymer v. Mayo and its significance in trust law.
  2. 2What is the slayer rule and how was it applied in this case?
  3. 3Discuss the court's reasoning for treating Mayo as having predeceased Clymer.
  4. 4Explain how constructive trusts function and why they were relevant here.
  5. 5What implications does this case have for future estate planning?
  6. 6Identify the key equitable principles guiding the court’s decision.
  7. 7How does this case differentiate between probate and nonprobate transfers?
Mnemonic Device

Killer Can't Keep: Slayers forfeit benefits through trust and estates.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
In re Estate of RiddleIn Riddle, the court did not apply the slayer rule because the beneficiary did not directly cause the death, whereas in Clymer, the husband was the direct perpetrator.
Kauffman v. KauffmanKauffman involved a dispute among heirs over rightful inheritance shares, with no element of the slayer rule at issue, unlike Clymer.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

The slayer rule adheres to public policy by deterring individuals from committing crimes for financial gain and reinforcing moral and ethical standards in society.

Against the Rule

Critics argue that the application of the slayer rule may unfairly penalize dependents or family members who were not involved in the wrongdoing and who might suffer financially as a result.

Class Discussion Points
  • What are the moral implications of allowing a murderer to benefit from their crime?
  • How does the slayer rule intersect with constitutional rights such as due process?
  • Can equity provide further remedies beyond those discussed in this case for wrongful beneficiaries?
Exam Angle

This case is likely to appear on exams in questions involving the slayer rule, the treatment of beneficiaries post-murder, and how courts enforce equitable remedies within trusts. Students should focus on the intersection of trust law and public policy implications in estate planning.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.