Clark v. Office of Personnel Management
256 F.3d 1360 (2001)
Michaels' wife, Melonie was a
Federal employee. That gave her an employee death benefit to be paid to
Michael if she died.
Under Federal regulations,
the benefits go to the "surviving spouse."
The relationship didn't go
well and Melonie moved out. There was an altercation and a gun battle
that left Michael, Melonie, and Melonie's parents all dead.
There was some debate over
who shot who, but the police report found that Michael had intentionally
killed Melonie.
Michael's brother Phillip went
to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and applied for Melonie's
death benefits, which would go to him as Michael's heir.
Phillip was also the
appointed guardian of Michael and Melonie's children, so he probably
wanted the money for their benefit.
OPM found that there is a
principle that one who kills his spouse cannot inherit from that spouse.
The OPM Administrative Judge
affirmed. Phillip appealed.
The Merit Systems Protection
Board affirmed. Phillip appealed.
The Federal Appellate Court
affirmed.
The Appellate Court found
that Alabama State law prohibits killers from profiting from their
crimes.
Alabama's "Slayer
Statute" says that one who feloniously and intentionally kills
their spouse is deemed to have predeceased the decedent and is thus
ineligible to receive "surviving spouse" benefits.
This is also true under
general common law.
Since this involved a
Federal Agency, the Alabama State Statute didn't apply, but the common
law principles still apply.
Phillip unsuccessfully
argued that Michael had never been to court and had never been convicted
of killing anyone, so the Slayer Statute should not apply.
The Appellate Court found
that the Slayer Statute must be
applied where there is a conviction, but absence of a conviction doesn't
mean that it cannot be applied.
This common law principle only
applies to intentional acts. If
you accidentally kill someone, even if you are held liable, you can still
inherit.
Unlike criminal guilt though,
you only have to show that the person was responsible for the intentional
act by a preponderance of evidence (the civil liability standard).
The courts can also use constructive
trusts to bar a killer's relatives
from inheriting on the theory that if they die then the killer might get
the money.