The Honorable Leonard Prewitt 

F,xecutive secretary, Teacher 

Retirement System of Texas 

1001 Trinity Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Opinion No, H- 721 

Re: Responsibilities of the 

Teacher Retirement 

System when a member 

is murdered by his beneDear Mr. Prewitt: ficiary. 

You have requested our opinion regarding the responsibilities of the 

Teacher Retirement System when one of its members or retired members 

is murdered or alleged to have been murdered by his designated beneficiary. 

Attorney General Opinion O.-Z590 (1940) resolved this question on the 

basis of a 1918 decision of the Beaumont Court of Civil Appeals, Murchison 

w 203 S. W. 423 (Tex. Civ.App. --Beaumont 1918, no writ), 

which declared that it is against public policy to permit a beneficiary to 

recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy if he feloniously kills the 

insured and that, in such cases, the proceeds are payable to the estate 

of the insured. Nevertheless, the court held that the bene’ficiary-Murderer, 

as the sole heir of decedent’s estate, was entitled to the proceeds. 

Following the court’s decision in Murchison, the Legislature enacted 

section 21.23 of the Insurance Code [formerly article 5047, V. T. C. S. ] 

which provides that the “interest of a beneficiary [is] . . . forfeited 

, 

when the beneficiary is the principal or accomplice in willfully bringing 

about the death of the insured.” In such cases, “the nearest relative 

of the insured shall receive said insurance.” Since survivors’ benefits 

under the Teacher Retirement System are not governed by the Insurance 

Code, however, it is necessary to look to the common law to determine the 

applicable principles. 

Since Attorney General Opinion O-2590 ( 1940 ), the ,Texas courts, as 

a means of carrying out the public policy which prevents a person from 

profiting by his own wrong. have imposed a constructive trust upon 

property passing to heirs who murder their ancestors. Under this doctrine, 

legal title to decedent’s property passes to the murderer, but the law imposes 

p. 3087 
., . 

The Honorable Leonard Prewitt, page 2 (~-721) 

a constructive trust thereon for the benefit of other heirs. Parks V. Dumas, 

321 S. W. 2d 653 (Tex. Civ. App. --Ft. Worth 1959, no writ); Pritchett v. 

Henry. 287 S. W. 2d 546 (Tex. Civ. App. --Beaumont 1955, writ dism’d. ). 

In Pritchett, the court explained its rationale thus: 

By imposing a constructive trust upon the 

murderer, the court is not making an exception to the provisions of the statutes, but is 

merely compelling a murderer to surrender 

the profits of his crime and thus preventing 

his unjust enrichment. 287 S. W. 2d at 549. 

Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Pope V. Garrett, 211 S. W. 2d 559 

(Tex.Sup. 1948). the court in Parks v. Dumas, sup, held that the 

constructive trust doctrine is a creature of equity. Its purpose is to 

prevent a situation in which “the statutes of descent and distribution may 

. .~. be used as an instrument for perpetuating or protecting a fraud. ” 

321 S. W. 2d at 655. 

Under the law of most jurisdictions, the disqualification of a beneficiary bars the claim of anyone who succeeds to his rights, whether it be 

his assignee, his heirs, or the administrator of his estate.4 Couch on 

Insurance 2d. § 27:161. at 709-10. Thus, a beneficiary cannot confer 

upon his heirs or assigns the proceeds of his victims estate. In addition, 

section 3.07 of the Education Code provides that “any . . . right . . . 

accruing to any person under the provisions of this chapter . . . shall 

be unassignable except as provided. . . .I’ 

From the analogy of Pritchett and Parks, we may conclude that, in the 

event a member of the System is murdered by,his designated beneficiary, 

a constructive trust will be imposed upon such beneficiary, in favor of 

those persons in whom benefits vest, according to statute, when the designation of the primary beneficiary fails. Section 3.33 of the Education Code 

provides, in pertinent part: 

(b) In the event a member fails to designate 

a beneficiary, or the designated beneficiary 

predeceases the member and there is no 

designation effective at the date of death, the 

death benefits and election right to survivor 

benefits shall vest (in the, order listed) with 

p. 3088 
The Honorable Leonard Prewitt, page 3 (H-721) 

(1) the surviving widow or surviving 

dependent widower of the deceased; or 

(2) the children of the deceased in 

equal portions;. or 

(3) the dependent parent or parents of 

the deceased in equal portions. 

(c) If none of the persons named in Subsection (b) 

(l), (Z), and (3) of this section survive; then, to 

the member’s estate, or to his heirs, in complete 

discharge of all claims for death and survivor benefits under this chapter, there shall be paid 

(1) the return of the accumulated contributions of the member; or 

(2) a $500 lump sum if death occurs 

after retirement. 

Thus, it is our opinion that, where a constructive trust is imposed, those 

persons listed in section 3.33 shall be entitled, in the order listed, to the 

available benefits, provided that such beneficiary is not himself the murderer of the member. We note that, by the terms of section 3.34(t) of the 

Education Code, if the beneficiary is 

other than a surviving widow, dependent widower, 

child, grandchild, brother, sister, or dependent 

parent of the deceased, or other persons ‘financially 

dependent on the deceased, the death benefits payable to the beneficiary under the provisions of this 

chapter shall be limited to the accumulated contributions in the member’s member savings account. 

You also ask whether the Teacher Retirement.System may rely upon a 

waiver executed by the alternative beneficiaries created by section 3. 33(b) 

in favor of the designated beneficiary-murderer, or may enter into a 

settlement agreement which results in an obligation on the part of the 

System to pay benefits to the murderer, In our opinion, neither a waiver 

p. 3089 
. 

The Honorable Leonard Prewitt, page 4 (H-721) 

nor a settlement agreement to such effect would be valid. AS the Supreme 

Court declared in Poue v. Garrett, supra. the doctrine of constructive 

trust is to be “imposed irrespective of and even contrary to the intention 

of the parties. ” 211 S. W. 2d at 561. If the public policy which prevents 

a person from profiting by his own wrong is strong enough to require, in 

effect, a judicially-created exception to the descent and distribution 

statutes, it certainly may not be thwarted by any agreement between the 

murderer, the alternative beneficiaries, and the Teacher Retirement 

System. 

As to the procedure which the System should follow when it has information that the member was murdered by his designated beneficiary, we 

believe that the System, in order to protect itself from liability, should 

await a judicial order imposing a constructive trust. It,is of COU~RC 

possible that the designated beneficiary will be determined not to have 

caused the death of the member. The standard promulgated by article 21.23 

of the Insurance Code, “w’illfully bringing about the death of the insured, ” 

has been construed by the Supreme Court to require something more than 

intent to cause death. But although the factor of illegality must also be present, 

“willfully” should not be construed to mean “maliciously. ” Green v. 

Franklin Life Insurance Co., 221 S.W. 2d 857, 859 (Tex. Sup. 1959). This 

standard may reasonably be applied to situations involving the Teacher 

Retirement System. 

In most cases, either the designated beneficiary or the alternative beneficiaries uader section 3. 33 will probably bring an action against the 

System to require payment of benefits. If none of these parties do so within 

a reasonable time, the System should, in our opinion, file an interpleader 

action in the district court. Interpleader has been frequently upheld as 

a proper action in such cases. See Murray V. American National Insurance 

co.. 300 S. W. Zd 187 (Tex..Civ. AT. --Ft. Worth 1957, writ ref’d. ); Murray 

v. Bankers Life Co., 299 S. W. 2d 730 (Tex. Civ. App. --Ft. Worth 1957, 

writ ref’d); Cooley v. Coolev, 503 S. W. 2d 604 (Tex. Civ. App. --Eastland 

1973, no writ). As the court held in McCormick v. Southwestern Life 

Insurance Co., 35 S. W. Zd 502,503 (Tex. Civ. App. --Waco 1931, no writ), 

the purpose of interpleader is to protect an innocent stakeholder. It is 

proper SO long as the stakeholder is in some real doubt or hazard in passing 

and acting upon conflicting claims. Until a court has imposed a constructive 

trust in favor of the alternative beneficiaries, the Teacher Retirement System 

p. 3090 
. 

. - 

. 

. 

The Honorable Leonard’Prewitt, page 5 (H-721) 

may be said to be “in some real doubt or hazard” as to whom it 

should pay the available benefits. If and when a constructive trust 

is recognized, the System may pay the proceeds to the alternative 

beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of section 3.33 of the 

Education Code. 

SUMMARY 

When a member of the Teacher Retirement 

System is judicially determined to have been 

murdered by his designated beneficiary, the courts 

will impose a constructive trust upon such beneficiary in favor of those persons in whom benefits 

vest under section 3.33 of the Education Code when 

the designated beneficiary is disqualified. The 

Teacher Retirement System should not pay any 

benefits in such situations, however, until a 

constructive trust has been imposed by judicial 

order. If no interested party files an action to 

require payment within a reasonable time, the System 

should bring an interpleader action for the purpose 

of determining to whom it should pay the proceeds. 

Very truly yours, 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

7i.Lk.Tb 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 3091