Opinion ID: 1968694
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Mahnke Exception

Text: Although, as we have indicated, Mahnke v. Moore presented some most unusual and egregious conduct, the underpinning of our decision was not limited to those facts. We have identified four bases for the immunity doctrine: the preservation of peace and harmony of the family, the preservation of parental control and discretion, the prevention of collusion and fraud, and averting a depletion of family resources that litigation between parents and children might cause. When the conduct giving rise to the action is of such a nature to have, itself, destroyed the family harmony and significantly eroded any realistic prospect of parental control and discretion, and there is no indication of fraud or collusion or the risk of depleting resources that otherwise would be devoted to the family unit, there is no longer any justification for the immunity and therefore no logical or public policy reason to apply it. Those circumstances do not necessarily arise merely because culpable conduct causes the death of a family member, and we therefore, expressly, do not extend the Mahnke v. Moore exception to every wrongful death case. Tragic deaths often arise from acts of negligence or excessive, but non-wilful, behavior on the part of family membersautomobile accidents, carelessness in the home, for exampleand, although such tragedies may well put a serious strain on some of the family relationships, they do not generally destroy a parent-child relationship. A parent who negligently causes the death of his or her spouse or of a child can still maintain a parent-child relationship; the family, even in its grief, can survive. Thus, the mere fact that death is the consequence of the conduct is not a reason to discard the doctrine. When the death is occasioned by murder or voluntary manslaughter, however, any remaining relationships are far more likely to be sufficiently shattered to be beyond further impairment by a lawsuit. The blow is not just the death itself, or even the hard fact that it was caused by the other parent, but rather that the killing was intentional and not the product of mere carelessness. Added to the psychological trauma of that are the likely collateral consequences of such criminal behavior. The evidence in this case demonstrates the point. When this suit was filed, there was no longer a family unit; Gladys was dead, John was in prison, and Laura and Kevin were in the legal and physical custody of another couple. John had no ability to exercise any parental discretion or control; because he was in prison, guardians had been appointed of the persons and the property of the children. The personal relationships between John and the children had soured to the point that there was little contact between them; John wrote to them from prison, but they did not respond. Certainly, there was no indication of any fraud of collusion between John and his children, and there was no evidence that resources that otherwise would have been devoted to the family unit would be depleted by the lawsuit. Indeed, John testified that his resources had been depleted in defending the criminal charge. In short, the underpinnings of the immunity doctrine no longer existed. John argues that he has not abandoned the parental relation with his children, noting that he cared for them for a time after Gladys's death, made arrangements for their care during his incarceration, and hopes to be reunited with them after his release. He further asserts that, because he hopes to be reunited with his children, their suit against him would unduly impair discipline and destroy the harmony of the family. He maintains that the policies underlying parent-child immunity will be preserved by its application in this case. It may be that, at some time in the future, John and his children will reconcile and reform a family unit. That is not the point, however. Although we cited the relevant facts in this case in support of our more general belief, our view of the matter is that, when a wrongful death action is predicated on a murder or voluntary manslaughter, the immunity should not apply as a matter of law. Application of the doctrine in such a case does not depend on the particular underlying circumstances, which, in their details, will likely vary from case to case. The murder or voluntary manslaughter of a spouse or child by a parent necessarily constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment, not just of the person killed but of the other family members as well. For purposes of the immunity doctrine, even if not for other purposes, it also constitutes an abandonment of the parental relationship and of the broader family harmony, and, as a matter of judicial and legal policy, it should not bar a wrongful death action by the remaining family members otherwise entitled to bring such an action. This policy is consistent with the slayer's rule that we have adopted in order to preclude persons guilty of murder or voluntary manslaughter from profiting from their conduct by claiming inheritances and insurance proceeds otherwise payable only because of the victim's death. That rule, developed in three cases Price v. Hitaffer, 164 Md. 505, 165 A. 470 (1933), Chase v. Jenifer, 219 Md. 564, 150 A.2d 251 (1959), and Schifanelli v. Wallace, 271 Md. 177, 315 A.2d 513 (1974) was summarized in Ford v. Ford, 307 Md. 105, 512 A.2d 389 (1986), essentially as follows: (1) a person who kills another may not share in the distribution of the decedent's estate, either as an heir or as a beneficiary under a will, and may not, as a beneficiary, collect the proceeds under an insurance policy on the decedent's life when the homicide is felonious and intentional, and (2) the person may share in the distribution and may collect life insurance proceeds when the homicide is unintentional even though it is the result of such gross negligence as would render the killer criminally guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Id. at 111-12, 512 A.2d at 392. That is precisely the standard we hold applicable to the defense of parent-child immunity in a wrongful death action. Not only, for the reasons we cited above, does it mesh neatly with the function of the immunity doctrine, but it conforms as well with the broader public policy underlying the slayer's rulethat a person who commits a felonious and intentional killing should not benefit from that conduct. In addition to recounting the substance of the slayer's rule, Ford v. Ford laid out the procedure for implementing it. We noted there that the disposition of a criminal proceeding is not conclusive of the character of the homicide or of the criminal agency of the putative killer in a civil proceeding concerning entitlement to assets of the decedent. Id. at 112, 512 A.2d at 392-93. Rather, the determination of whether the alleged killer was the criminal agent and whether the homicide was intentional and felonious or unintentional is a function within the ambit of the civil proceeding. Id., 512 A.2d at 393. That view is consistent with the law generally. A criminal conviction is not conclusive of the facts behind it in a subsequent civil proceeding, and, indeed, the conviction is ordinarily not even admissible in the civil action as evidence of the underlying facts. Briggeman v. Albert, 322 Md. 133, 137, 586 A.2d 15, 17 (1991); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Kuhl, 296 Md. 446, 450, 463 A.2d 822, 825 (1983); Brooks v. Daley, 242 Md. 185, 196, 218 A.2d 184, 190 (1966). Under this approach, the critical issue, as to liability, to be resolved in this case was whether John's conduct causing Gladys's death was intentional, so as to constitute at least voluntary manslaughter. There was no dispute that he caused her death; the only issue was his mental state. The question put to the jury, unfortunately, was not merely whether his conduct was intentional, but whether his acts were atrocious, show a complete abandonment of the parental relation, were intentional, were willful and were malicious. That asked too much of the jury, for, if the killing was intentional, the atrociousness of it and its effect as an abandonment of the parental relation would follow as a matter of law. As we indicated, Eagan asked that the court resubmit the question in its constituent parts, which would have allowed the jury to determine whether the killing was intentional but, over John's objection, the court refused that request. Ordinarily, on disputed evidence, it would be a jury question whether the killing of Gladys was an intentional act on John's part, and, because of John's testimony, we would be required to direct that the case be remanded for a new trial on that issue. Here, however, we are spared that task. First, there was evidence that John had entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter, which constituted a judicial admission that he killed Gladys and that his act of killing her constituted voluntary manslaughter. See Brohawn v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 276 Md. 396, 403, 347 A.2d 842, 847 (1975); Briggeman v. Albert, supra, 322 Md. at 135, 586 A.2d at 16. That admission was not conclusive, of course, and was subject to rebuttal. More significantly, however, in support of his motion for summary judgment, John placed into the record, as an exhibit to his affidavit describing his close feelings toward his children and all that he had done for them following Gladys's death, a memorandum of law filed by his attorney in a collateral proceeding dealing with the guardianship of Laura and Kevin. That memorandum addressed specifically the nature of John's interest in the erstwhile marital home, which had been held by him and Gladys as tenants by the entireties, and, in it, he took the position that, because of the slayer's rule, he held the half interest that devolved to him by reason of Gladys's death in trust for his children. After discussing in some detail the slayer's rule, including an awareness that, if the killing of Gladys was intentional, he would be unable to take title to her undivided half interest in the property, he conceded that he was, indeed, subject to that rule and that, as a result, he could not share in the distribution of her estate or collect any proceeds of insurance on her life and would hold her former half interest in the marital property as trustee for his children. Through counsel, he concluded the memorandum with the following statement: In the case of JOHN C. CALHOUN, the death of GLADYS ESTHER CALHOUN was homicide, homicide was voluntary manslaughter, Mr. Calhoun was the criminal agent, he was not adjudicated insane by the court. He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and incarcerated. The elements are prima facie within the ambit of the slayer's rule. (Emphasis in original.) Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, 7 H. & W. 927 that [a] man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another. See Edes v. Garey, 46 Md. 24, 41 (1877); see also Hall v. McCann, 51 Md. 345, 351 (1879); Scanlon v. Walshe, 81 Md. 118, 132, 31 A. 498 (1895); Stone v. Stone, 230 Md. 248, 253, 186 A.2d 590, 593 (1962); Wilson Brothers v. Cooey, 251 Md. 350, 359, 247 A.2d 395, 400 (1968); Van Royen v. Lacey, 266 Md. 649, 651-52, 296 A.2d 426, 427-28 (1972). In Stone v. Stone and Wilson Brothers v. Cooey, supra , we adopted the statement of that principle set forth in 19 AM.JUR. Estoppel § 50 (1939), now found in 28 AM.JUR.2D Estoppel and Waiver § 68, at 694-95 (1966): Generally speaking, a party will not be permitted to maintain inconsistent positions or to take a position in regard to a matter which is directly contrary to, or inconsistent with, one previously assumed by him, at least where he had, or was chargeable with, full knowledge of the facts, and another will be prejudiced by his action. In the memorandum filed by his attorney in connection with the guardianship matter, John acknowledged that his conduct constituted voluntary manslaughter and was therefore intentional. John was obviously aware of that memorandum, as he attached a copy of it to his own affidavit filed in this case. Having thus conceded that the killing of Gladys was an act of voluntary manslaughter, John is estopped from taking any contrary position in this case. At the very least, the force of that estoppel allows the plea of guilty to stand unrebutted and thus to establish that the killing was a voluntary manslaughter. Accordingly, the Mahnke v. Moore exception applies as a matter of law, and, as the circuit court concluded, the failure of the jury to answer the second question on the verdict sheet is without consequence. We shall therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remand with directions to affirm the judgment of the circuit court. JUDGMENT OF COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS VACATED; CASE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO AFFIRM JUDGMENT OF CIRCUIT COURT; COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENT.