Court Opinion

ID: 9734830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:47:34.011855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:51.505866
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
To the extent that the majority opinion relies upon § 30.1-10-03(2), NDCC, to define benefits to Robert E. Snortland, because it is a “specific provision governing *40the disposition of joint tenancy property” (see § 1-02-07, NDCC), it is in error.
Section 30.1-10-03(1), NDCC, is equally specific in prohibiting any killer from receiving “any benefits under the will or under Chapters 30.1-04 through 30.1-11,” and in requiring the matter to be handled as if Robert E. Snortland had predeceased En-golf Snortland. See Matter of Estates of Josephsons, 297 N.W.2d 444 (N.D.1980). This will avoid the absurd results reached by the trial court and affirmed by the majority.
In any event, the Legislature should give the matter some attention.