Riggs v. Palmer

1.On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament that would benefit Elmer Palmer, the grandson should he survive Francis Palmer . (1.1) 2.The grandson, Elmer Palmer knew of such provisions and proceeds to murder his grandfather to expedite his inheritance . (1.4) 3.Palmer claims that the law concerning trust and estate makes the will irrevocable . (1.7) 4.Since the will is irrevocable, Palmer is entitled to collect his inheritance . (2.1) 5.Laws and statutes are made to be flexible, not rigid .(3.6) 6.Words of the law may be left ambiguous to include unforeseeable circumstances. (3.6) 7.Interpretations of the law provide the courts with reasoning to support their opinions. (3.6) 8.The rational interpretation is a judicial process where the judges would ask what the original intent of the law was and what would the original law makers do under the current circumstances in order to make the correct judgment . (4.4) 9.Using rational interpretation, the court has decided that "peaceable, reasonable" lawmakers will not intend to reward a man from his crimes under the law . (4.6) 10.Therefore, Palmer should not receive the inheritance pursuant to the will. Non-Controversial: 1.Elmer Palmer murdered his grandfather Francis Palmer in order to gain his estate through an inheritance. 2.Wills are subject to trust and estate laws. 3.The will was in proper legal form and admitted to probate. Controversial: There are 2 controversial issues of this case: (1) Should Palmer be entitled to his inheritance after murdering his grandfather? and (2) Is the court allow to revise a person"s will under special circumstances? To answer the first question, the court has decided that Palmer should not receive his inheritance after he murdered his grandfather. The defense claimed that the will was prepared and admitted to probate, fully complying with the statute. Therefore Palmer should be allowed to claim his inheritance. This happens to be a special instance where the court had the right to change the will because society does not reward individuals for their bad behavior. The grandfather"s will did not provide an alternative in case of wrongful death but it is reasonable to say that the grandfather had not anticipated one of his family member"s intent on murdering him. There is no record of there being any family dispute and the respondent was living with the deceased as a member of his family (1.4). It is reasonable to speculate that had the grandfather felt any animosity or hostility among his family members, he would have modified his will to prevent such wrongdoings. It is also a matter of keeping the trusting relationship within the family. There is a possibility that if the family knew of the wrongful death provisions, it may create suspicion or distrust. The will was created so that the family members would be provided for when the benefactor passes and by murdering the grandfather, Palmer has willfully forfeited his share of the inheritance. Further reasoning has provided that a court should be allowed to make certain modifications to a will under special circumstances. This is one of those special circumstances in that the beneficiary murdered the benefactor in order to expedite his inheritance. Trust and estate laws ensure that the documents are genuine and that the distribution of benefactor"s assets and effects are in pursuance to benefactor"s final wishes. The law does not promote the idea that someone should benefit from their crime. Granting the inheritance to Palmer is essentially allowing him to "get away with murder". When the law is left ambiguous, it is up to the courts to decide whether the particular circumstances are under the jurisdiction of the law. Rational interpretation allows the courts to either limit or expand on a statute without deviating from the principles of the statute and applying it to the circumstances. In this case, the court must find out whether the lawmakers of the statute intended for a person to benefit from their crime if no provisions in the will says otherwise. There are numerous cases that gave the court with reason to believe that Palmer should not receive his inheritance from the will. An example could be used from New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong where the court decided that monies within a benefactor"s insurance policy should not be granted to the designated beneficiaries when the beneficiaries are found guilty of murdering the benefactor . (7.5) A mother would not reward her child with a toy if she found out the toy was stolen or police officers would not reward the car to the thief if they found that the car was stolen. These examples rest on the fundamental principle that no person shall be rewarded for his crimes. The court may not have the power to re-write a person"s will in its entirety, but it should be able to alter certain allocations under such special circumstances.