Court Opinion

ID: 9743768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:42:31.086779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:43.432318
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
dissenting.
Billy Foleno's heinous murder of his wife eliminated her not only as the primary beneficiary of the life insurance policy but as well from the face of the earth. Were it not for this criminal act, the Fole-no brothers would not have any claim to the insurance proceeds. The eriminal act therefore benefited the brothers.
Here, but for their heirship status as the brothers of the murderer, they would not be beneficiaries under the insurance contract. For this reason I am unable to subscribe to the distinction drawn by the majority as to a claim to the proceeds "according to the terms of the contract-not by intestate succession." Slip opinion at 497-98.
Notwithstanding the powerful force of the majority's historical analysis and solid reasoning, principles of equity compel my view that we should apply this court's decision in Heinzman v. Mason, 694 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). There we held that a constructive trust should be employed to prevent not only the wrongdoer from benefiting but to prevent the wrongdoer's heirs from benefiting even where the heirs are completely without fault.
I would reverse and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of the Estate of Charlotte Foleno.