Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrustobjection
pleatrustwillappellantappellee

Related Cases

Pikula v. Department of Social Services, 321 Conn. 259, 138 A.3d 212
View Case »
Matter of Godfrey, 59 B.R. 232, 1 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 318
View Case »
In the Matter of John Pasqualicchio, appellant, v. Taralee Balfe, respondent. (Docket Nos., nan
View Case »
Reynolds Securities, Inc. v. Underwriters Bank & Trust Co., 44 N.Y.2d 568, 378 N.E.2d 106, 406 N.Y.S.2d 743
View Case »
In re Spencer W., 48 Cal.App.4th 1647, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 524, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6533
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Trust Estate of Jamison, 431 Pa.Super. 486, 636 A.2d 1190

Facts

Ethel Jamison created an irrevocable inter vivos trust on August 10, 1988, transferring her property to trustees for the benefit of herself and her daughters, Bernice and Leslie. Upon Ethel's death on July 30, 1991, and Leslie's subsequent suicide, Bernice was convicted of third-degree murder for her mother's death. The trustees filed an account, proposing to distribute the trust principal, but did not include Bernice's share, leading to her objections and subsequent appeal after the court ruled that her share passed to her children under the Slayer's Act.

On August 10, 1988, Bernice's mother, Ethel Jamison (Ethel), created an irrevocable inter vivos trust (trust) and transferred all her property to her trustees named therein. Appellant is one of the trustees named and appellees are the two surviving co-trustees, William Jamison having died January 2, 1990. Under the terms of the trust, trustees were given discretion to use income and principal for the benefit of Ethel and Bernice's sister, Leslie Jamison (Leslie), during their lifetimes, and upon the last to die of Ethel and Leslie, the trust terminated and the trustees were directed to pay the remaining trust principal in shares, Bernice's share set forth as one-half. On July 30, 1991, Ethel died and thereafter, on the same day, Leslie committed suicide. Bernice pleaded guilty to third degree murder in the death of her mother.

Issue

Did the Slayer's Act apply to deny Bernice her share of the trust property due to her conviction for the murder of her mother?

Did the Slayer's Act apply to deny Bernice her share of the trust property due to her conviction for the murder of her mother?

Rule

Under the Slayer's Act, a person who participates in the unlawful killing of another is deemed to have predeceased the decedent, and any property that would have passed to them is distributed as if they had not survived the decedent.

No slayer shall in any way acquire any property or receive any benefit as the result of the death of the decedent, but such property shall pass as provided in the sections following. 20 Pa.C.S. § 8802.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Bernice had acquired any property or benefit as a result of her mother's death. It concluded that since her entitlement to the trust was conditioned on her surviving both Ethel and Leslie, and her actions disrupted the natural order of events, the Slayer's Act applied. Thus, Bernice was deemed to have predeceased her mother, and her share was to be distributed to her children.

The Slayer's Act functions to deny a slayer any property which she acquires any interest in as a result of her atrocious act. 20 Pa.C.S. § 8802. Appellant's interest in the transfer of the trust property was specifically conditioned upon her surviving the decedent. By altering the natural course of events upon which this condition rested, the Slayer's Act operates to deprive appellant of her interest in the trust.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Bernice was not entitled to any share of the trust due to her conviction for her mother's murder.

Accordingly, since appellant is deemed to have predeceased the decedent, the trust provides that her share is to be distributed to her then living children, per stirpes.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the estate of Ethel Jamison, as the court upheld the forfeiture of Bernice's share under the Slayer's Act, reinforcing the principle that one cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing.

The prevailing party was the estate of Ethel Jamison, as the court upheld the forfeiture of Bernice's share under the Slayer's Act, reinforcing the principle that one cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing.

You must be