[WSBAPT] Negligent mother and wrongful death insurance monies

Thu Nov 6 13:03:35 PST 2014

Hmmm-- look at In re Estate of Evans,181 Wn. App. 436, 446,326 P.3d 755,
760 (Div I 2014), which says:

"We can presume that the legislature knew that treating an abuser as
predeceased would trigger the antilapse statute. The legislature could have
specified that the abuser's descendants were also disinherited. It did not
do so."

It goes on to explain:

<https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=fcd86087-a3bf-469d-89e7-f9806b8bb130&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5C97-Y3K1-F04M-B02G-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5C97-Y3K1-F04M-B02G-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=10841&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5C8T-0GW1-J9X5-V4Y9-00000-00&pdshepcat=initial&ecomp=8hyg&earg=sr3&prid=24f47cc6-e85f-48cd-a3c4-ce545c283004#>"In
the context of slayers, the Washington Supreme Court recognized that most
states have been “reluctant to extend the rule beyond the slayer and deny
the slayer's heirs from taking directly from the victim's estate.” *In re
Estate of Kissinger*, 166 Wn.2d 120, 126, 206 P.3d 665 (2009). This
reluctance generally rests on the notion of fairness to innocent persons.
Mary Louise Fellows, *The Slayer Rule: Not Solely a Matter of Equity*, 71 Iowa
L. Rev. 489, 495 (1986). In her law review article, Fellows points out that
the purpose of the antilapse statute is to imply a devise to further the
testator's intent. *Id.* at 530. The antilapse statute “should not be
viewed differently than a provision in the victim's will for an alternative
taker to the slayer; therefore, extending the fiction of the slayer's death
to the antilapse statute seems correct.” *Id.* She likewise notes that “[w]hen
the slayer does not have the right to control the disposition” of the
testator's estate, “any indirect benefit that results from allowing the
natural objects of the slayer's bounty to take from the victim's estate
does not warrant disqualifying these innocent persons.” *Id.* at 495."

In other words, the court does not accept the theory that the apple does
not fall far from the tree!

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Richard Wills <
richardwills at washington-probate.com> wrote:

>
>
> *I was recently but am no longer involved in a probate in which Decedent's
> husband was convicted of having murdered the D, with the conviction having
> been upheld on appeal.  According to D's Will, D's estate went to the H,
> which he lost due to the slayer statute, & then half to D's sibs & half to
> D's H's deceased sister's four adult daughters.  The issue was whether the
> latter would take their half or forfeit it under the slayer statute,
> resulting in D's sibs getting all of the estate. I consulted with Carol
> Vaughn, & as I recall, she told me that she was recently involved in a
> slayer case with assets ostensibly passing on default due to the slayer
> statute to one or more of the slayer's relatives, & in which the King
> County Court had held that the estate's passing to the slayer's relatives
> benefited the slayer & thus ordered the relatives to be considered as
> having predeceased, & that that ruling was upheld on appeal.**
> Therefore, case law appears to exist to overturn the horrible result of
> which you speak.  No, I don't know the name of the case, although it was
> recent.*
>
>
> On 11/6/2014 10:18 AM, Roger Hawkes wrote:
>
>  Be aware a recent Supremes decision interprets this to mean the child of
> the slayer then takes the inheritance because of the anti lapse statute; I
> think that is a horrible result, but the reasoning is sound; a legislative
> fix is in order, I hope.  Does anyone know whether one is in the works?
>
>
>
> Roger Hawkes, WSBA # 5173
>
> 19909 Ballinger Way NE
>
> Shoreline, WA 98155
>
> www.hawkeslawfirm.com
>
> 206 367 5000
>
> Fax is 206 367 4005
>
>
>
> *From:* Jill H. Sasser [mailto:jill.sasser at landerholm.com
> <jill.sasser at landerholm.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:58 AM
> *To:* 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv'
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBAPT] Negligent mother and wrongful death insurance
> monies
>
>
>
> Dalynne:
>
>
> I would take a look at RCW 11.84 and case law citing this statute, which
> might address your situation.  I think your issue might be whether the
> mother was negligent vs. willful and unlawful (read the definition of a
> slayer in RCW 11.84.010).
>
>
>
> 11.84.030
> Slayer or abuser deemed to predecease decedent.
>
> The slayer or abuser shall be deemed to have predeceased the decedent as
> to property which would have passed from the decedent or his or her estate
> to the slayer or abuser under the statutes of descent and distribution or
> have been acquired by statutory right as surviving spouse or surviving
> domestic partner or under any agreement made with the decedent under the
> provisions of RCW 26.16.120
> <http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.16.120> as it now exists
> or is hereafter amended.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jill H. Sasser | Attorney at Law
> [image: Landerholm Logo]
> 805 Broadway Street, Suite 1000
>
> P.O. Box 1086
> Vancouver, WA 98666-1086
> T: 360-816-2534 | T: 503-283-3393  | F: 360-816-2496
> www.landerholm.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
> mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>] *On Behalf Of *Dalynne Singleton
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:41 AM
> *To:* wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com
> *Subject:* [WSBAPT] Negligent mother and wrongful death insurance monies
>
>
>
> I do not do criminal work but do remember, in law school, that someone who
> murders another cannot collect on life insurance even if the beneficiary
> because of his/her bad acts.  If the decedent’s estate is intestate, I
> would think the same would apply to distribution of the proceeds, nothing
> to the person even if they were to take under the intestacy statutes.
>
>
>
> I have a situation where I opened a probate on behalf of a six year old
> who died as a result of a once car traffic collision and was appointed
> Administrator.  His biological mother was driving.  I am co-counsel with an
> attorney who represents the father (divorced parents) and he is deciding
> whether to bring claims against (1) municipality on roadway design; and/or
> (2) negligent mother.  We have hired an expert to review the scene of the
> collision and whether the 2 potential defendants are negligent or liable
> for the death of this young child.
>
>
>
> Mother’s insurer has offered 500k policy limits on settlement under UM/UIM
> policy for the son’s death.  There is no PIP because son died at scene of
> collision.
>
> Since I am the administrator, I will be researching the issue of whether
> the mother, if found negligent in the son’s death, is entitled to intestate
> proceeds from the son’s estate and if yes, to what % ?
>
>
>
> If anyone has faced this and has a brief which would get me started in my
> research, I would appreciate any input to assist.
>
> I will share my research with the listserve if there is interest…  thanks.
>
>
>
> Dalynne Singleton
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.jpg at 01CACA00.28153650]
> <http://www.singletonjorgensen.com/>
>
>
>
> 1541 Piperberry Way SE, Suite 105
>
> Port Orchard, WA  98366
>
> Phone: 360-329-4079
>
> Fax:     360-443-1259
>
> E-mail: dalynne at singletonjorgensen.com <lara at singletonjorgensen.com>
>
> Web:    www.singletonjorgensen.com
>
>
>
> *LICENSED IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON*
>
> IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail message (and any attachments
> accompanying it) may contain confidential information, including
> information protected by attorney-client privilege. The information is
> intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s).  Delivery of this
> message to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended to
> waive any privilege or otherwise detract from the confidentiality of the
> message.  If you are not the intended recipient, or if this message has
> been addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce,
> distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission, rather, please
> promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of
> the message and its attachments, if any.
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------
> This e-mail message (including attachments) is for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s).  It contains confidential, proprietary or legally
> protected information which is the property of  Landerholm, P.S. or its
> clients.  Any unauthorized disclosure or use of the contents of this e-mail
> is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, notify
> the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> ----------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBAPT mailing listWSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.comhttp://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBAPT mailing list
> WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
>

-- 
Elena Luisa Garella
Law Offices
K.R. Trigger Building, Suite 208
3201 First Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98134
phone: (206) 675-0675
fax:  (206) 922 5679
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20141106/d8c84a96/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 4361 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20141106/d8c84a96/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3812 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20141106/d8c84a96/attachment.jpe>