Riggs v. Palmer: Disallowing inheritance of will

1.On August 13th, 1880 Francis Palmer, grandfather, created his last will, giving small legacies to his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston (Plaintiffs), and remainder of the estate to his grandson, Elmer Palmer (Defendant). The legacies would be subject to the support and supervision of Susan Palmer. (45.1.1) 2.Francis Palmer was the owner of a farm and trust of the farm was given to Mrs. Bresee, whom Francis married in 1882. (45.1.3) 3.Elmer Palmer lived with his grandfather from the time the will was executed, and had clear knowledge of the provisions at stake. With the knowledge Elmer had, he was afraid that his grandfather would change his mind and revoke the provisions in favor of Elmer"s interests. There was intention made by the grandfather at one point, which furthered anxiety in Elmer"s mind. (45.1.5-6) 4.To get a head start on the benefits of the will and to prevent any potential changes to the will, Elmer decided to poison his grandfather. (45.1.6) 5.The question before the Court today is whether Elmer can take the estate and enjoy the fruits of his crime. (47.1.1) 6.In this probate suit, Defendants allege that the testator is dead and his will was made with fair procedure, admitted to the probate and therefore must have effect, with accordance to the letter of the law in Trusts and Estates. (45.2.1) 7.Moreover, it is the intention of the statute and the lawmakers advancing the statute that the donees in a will should have the property given to them, and that the testators final wishes are legally expressed without absolutely any modification or control of the will by the Courts. (45.2.2-2-4) 8.However, it must be noted, the lawmakers never intended, at the time of passing the statute, that the benefiting party who murders the testator should be privileged to benefit under testators will, so it could not possibly be in the statute. (45.2.5) 9.Lawmakers who pass laws do not always draft up their intentions with perfection, allowing judges to conjecture probable or rational thoughts " rational interpretation. (46.1.4) 10.In essence, no one is entitled to benefit from fraud, or to take advantage and acquire property by committing a convenient crime. 11.The United States functions under a common law system. 12. Under the common law of inheritance, the slayer rule is in effect, which disallows inheritance when the inheriting party commits a murder. 13.Additionally, the slayer rule was corroborated in the case of New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong (1886), where the Court disinherited the slayer because of the public policy principle that a slayer should not profit from his crime. 14.In New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong (1886), the court justified its decision with the following, "It would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of the country if one could recover insurance money payable on the death of the party whose life he had feloniously taken." 15.The same approach has to be taken in our case, because Elmer poisoned his grandfather to receive property from the death of his grandfather. 16.Aside from the language, we find that all laws, and contracts made between two parties, operate on the premise of general and fundamental maxims of the common law system, which can control and effect operation of a will. In other words, no person should have a personal gain from deception, and may not acquire property by his own crime. (46.3.4-5) 17.Maxims described above are detailed by public policy and have their roots in universal law, and are supreme to statutes. (46.3.6) 18.A will that operates by fraud and deception and is against public policy has to be made void. 19.In this case, there was no guarantee that Elmer would survive Francis, as he could"ve died first. Also, Francis Palmer could"ve switched up his will to fit his specific desire. In essence, many different actions could"ve occurred that would"ve negated Elmer"s interests in the estate. By murdering Francis, Elmer established his interest. (46.4.1-2) 20.By committing the crime, Elmer made the will speak and operate in his opportunistic favor. Is he allowed to gain from his act? It is clear that if he had met up with Francis and took his property by force, there would be no title granted, that is clear and cut. (47.1.3-5) 21.To allow Elmer title and access to the estate would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of the state, and as discussed before, a blatant offense to public policy. (47.1.8) Non-Controversial (Stipulated): "Elmer Palmer murdered his grandfather in order to gain his grandfather"s estate through an inheritance. "Wills are subject to trust and estate laws. "The will was in proper legal form and admitted to probate. Controversial: "Should Palmer be entitled to his inheritance after murdering his grandfather? "Is the court allowed to interfere and revise a person"s will under particular circumstances? With respect to the first controversial issue, the court has decided that Palmer should not receive his inheritance after he murdered his grandfather. While the defense asserts that the will was fully admitted to probate and is in compliance with the trust law, Palmer can still not inherit his grandfather"s real property. The court, in this case, specifically provided the idea of a universal maxim governing society. All laws and contracts made between two parties, operate on the premise of general and fundamental maxims of the common law system, which can control and effect operation of a will. In other words, no person should have a personal gain from murder or fraud, and may not acquire property by his own crime. Maxims are detailed by public policy and have their roots in universal law, which is adherent by every country, and are supreme to statutes. The court intervened in this matter because society does not compensate individuals for their bad behavior. There was no way the grandfather can change the will because he is now dead and the court is vested the right in place of him. Had the grandfather foreseen this act by his spiteful grandson, there would be a clause in the will dedicated to a case of wrongful death and the specificities behind it. Due to no such hostility, the grandfather was not in a place to act. For all we know, Elmer could"ve looked like the most trusting and respectful person around his grandfather. Creating a provision of wrongful death, however, would cause a slippery slope because members of the family would feel insecure and distrusted. A will is created to represent a sense of trust and unity within a family. It is important to also note that no reasonable grandfather would think of getting murdered by his grandson or family member for that matter. Elmer was also granted the right to live with his grandfather and no facts in the case are indicative of hatred towards one another. By committing the murder, Elmer destroyed the trust in the family and should not be restored inheritance belonging to Plaintiffs. The slayer rule, in trusts and estates law, has the effect of disqualifying the murderer from receiving property from the estate of the victim. For example, A, the beneficiary of insurance on the life of B, murders B. Is A allowed interest to the insurance? According to New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong (1886), neither the murderer nor anyone claiming under him can recover. The court has concluded that they will not allow a wrongdoer to profit from his crime. "It would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of the country, if one could recover insurance money payable on the death of a party whose life he had feloniously taken." This sets up the direct precedent for the case at hand, whereby Elmer should not receive his inheritance from the will. The court interprets this as to not reward any persons with their crimes. Therefore, under these special circumstances, the court is allowed to use rational interpretation in its approach to modify will.