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

willcivil law

appealwill

Related Cases

In re Wilkins’ Estate, 192 Wis. 111, 211 N.W. 652, 51 A.L.R. 1106

Facts

Edith Wilkins had a will that provided a legacy of $5,000 to Kurasethas, who was also a beneficiary under the residuary clause. However, Kurasethas murdered Wilkins and then committed suicide shortly thereafter. The county court was asked to construe the will and determined that Kurasethas could not take under it due to the circumstances of his actions.

It is conceded that K. murdered Edith Wilkins, and immediately thereafter committed suicide.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether Kurasethas could inherit under the will of Edith Wilkins despite having murdered her.

The sole question presented on this appeal involves the effect to be given to those provisions of the will which provide certain bequests for K., under the peculiar facts and circumstances heretofore related.

Rule

The court applied the principle that a person who commits a crime against another cannot benefit from that crime, which is a long-standing doctrine in both common and civil law.

The commission of crime does not disqualify one from taking under a will, unless it be under facts and circumstances as appear in the instant or similar cases.

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts surrounding Kurasethas's actions and determined that his murder of Wilkins deprived her of her right to change her will. The court emphasized that the act of murder not only disqualified Kurasethas from taking under the will but also rendered the provisions in his favor inoperative at the moment of Wilkins's death.

Under the facts in the instant case, the shooting of Edith Wilkins resulted in instantaneous death. K. survived her but a few seconds at most, and his act of suicide by shooting also resulted in instantaneous death.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the county court's decree, ruling that Kurasethas could not inherit under the will due to his crime.

The portion of the decree from which this appeal has been taken is affirmed.

Who won?

L. A. Avery, administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Edith Wilkins, prevailed because the court upheld the principle that a murderer cannot benefit from their crime.

The county court, upon an application made to construe the will, decreed that K. could not and did not take thereunder.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Matter of Estate of Corbett, 289 N.C.App. 629, 888 S.E.2d 408 (Table), 2023 WL 4340518

Gushwa v. Hunt, 145 N.M. 286, 197 P.3d 1, 2008-NMSC-064

Bean v. Wilson, 283 Ga. 511, 661 S.E.2d 518, 08 FCDR 1700

Walsh v. St. Joseph’s Home For Aged, 303 A.2d 691

In re Coates’ Estate, 55 Wash.2d 250, 347 P.2d 875