The Slayer Rule in New York: Disinheritance by Operation of Public Policy

Inheritance law presumes that beneficiaries take property by virtue of relationship or designation. But New York has long recognized a foundational limitation: no individual may profit from his or her own wrongdoing. When a beneficiary intentionally causes the death of the decedent, that individual is barred from inheriting—by will, by intestacy, or through non-probate transfers. Although New York does not codify a statute titled the “Slayer Statute,” the rule is firmly embedded in common law and repeatedly applied by the courts. It is not discretionary. It is structural.

The Foundational Case: Riggs v. Palmer

The principle originates with Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506 (1889), one of the most frequently cited decisions in American inheritance law. In Riggs, a grandson murdered his grandfather in order to accelerate receipt of an inheritance under the grandfather’s will. The New York Court of Appeals refused to permit him to inherit, despite the absence of an explicit statutory prohibition. The Court articulated the enduring maxim:

“No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong.”

From that decision emerged what is often called the “No Profit” rule. It reflects a public policy determination that inheritance rights yield to equitable principles when intentional wrongdoing is involved. The doctrine has since been extended well beyond testamentary gifts.

Scope of Application in Modern Practice

The slayer rule in New York applies broadly across probate and non-probate transfers. If a court determines that a killing was felonious and intentional, the perpetrator is treated as having predeceased the decedent. The consequences are comprehensive:

• Wills: The disqualified beneficiary is deemed to have predeceased, and the gift passes to alternate or residuary beneficiaries.

• Intestacy: The estate passes as though the slayer were not alive.

• Life Insurance and Retirement Accounts: The slayer is barred from receiving proceeds; benefits pass to contingent beneficiaries or the estate.

• Joint Tenancy: The survivorship feature is severed. The slayer retains only his or her original fractional interest.

• Trust Interests: Similar treatment applies; beneficial interests are extinguished.

This doctrine operates irrespective of the size of the estate. In high-value estates, however, the financial consequences can be extraordinary.

Civil Determination vs. Criminal Conviction

A common misconception is that a criminal conviction is required. It is not.

While a murder conviction will typically be dispositive, Surrogate’s Court or Supreme Court may independently determine—under a civil standard of proof—whether the killing was felonious and intentional. The burden is a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The O.J. Simpson litigation provides the widely known illustration of this distinction. Although acquitted criminally, he was found civilly liable for wrongful death and was therefore barred from inheriting from the victim’s estate. This distinction is critical in estate proceedings, where delay pending criminal adjudication may not be feasible, and where the protection of assets requires timely judicial determination.

High-Profile Application: The Astor Estate

The doctrine’s modern relevance was underscored in the estate of Brooke Astor, the prominent philanthropist and social figure. Although her son Anthony Marshall was ultimately convicted of financial crimes rather than homicide, the litigation surrounding her estate demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to intervene decisively where fiduciary misconduct threatens the integrity of substantial inheritances.

While not a slayer case per se, it illustrates a broader principle: courts will not permit individuals to benefit from serious wrongdoing directed at wealthy or vulnerable decedents. In estates involving significant wealth, judicial scrutiny intensifies rather than relaxes. In an actual homicide context involving a substantial estate, the financial implications can be staggering. Multi-million-dollar inheritances, closely held business interests, and generational trusts can be extinguished by operation of law if a beneficiary is disqualified under the slayer doctrine.

Policy Rationale

The slayer rule serves multiple functions:

1. Moral Integrity: It aligns inheritance law with foundational equitable principles.

2. Deterrence: It eliminates financial incentive tied to intentional wrongdoing.

3. Presumed Intent: Courts presume a decedent would not have intended a killer to benefit.

4. Judicial Consistency: It prevents manipulation of testamentary documents through violence.

In estates of substantial value, these principles take on amplified importance. The larger the potential inheritance, the greater the public policy interest in preventing unjust enrichment.

Estate Planning Implications

Although the slayer doctrine operates automatically by law, prudent estate planning remains essential. Naming alternate beneficiaries, incorporating contingent trust provisions, and periodically reviewing designations across insurance and retirement accounts reduce administrative uncertainty. For families of significant means, careful structuring of successor interests ensures that wealth transfers remain orderly even in extreme or unforeseen circumstances.