Tag: lifeinsurance

23 Jan

The Common Law Slayer Rule

Ian Hull Capacity, Estate & Trust, Estate Planning, Ethical Issues, General Interest, Health / Medical, In the News, News & Events, Public Policy Tags: , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

The common law slayer rule makes the law in Canada clear that committing murder will prevent a person from inheriting the estate of the victim. For clarity, the accused must be found guilty and exhaust all of their rights to appeal before the courts will void a testamentary gift or beneficiary designation.

In the cases of Helmuth Buxbaum and Peter Demeter, who were found guilty of murdering their wives, the court refused to allow the men to benefit from their crimes by collecting the proceeds of their wives’ insurance policies. Pursuant to the case of Demeter v British Pacific Life Insurance Co., [1984] OJ No 3363, a criminal conviction will be accepted as proof of criminal activity in civil cases. Therefore, a person who has been convicted of murder cannot argue in civil court proceedings that he or she is innocent and capable of accepting a testamentary gift.

Recently, in Minneapolis, an individual named Michael Gallagher killed his mother, and around a year later, is attempting to obtain her life insurance proceeds. According to an article in the Toronto Star, bedbugs were infesting the apartment of Mr. Gallagher’s mother, and he believed that she would be evicted from her home, and decided to “send her to heaven.” The law in Minnesota is similar to the law in Canada, and their legislation states that an individual who “feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent is not entitled to any benefits under the will.”

This case turns, however, on the fact that Mr. Gallagher was not convicted for murdering his mother. In July, a Judge found that he was not guilty due to reasons of mental illness, stating that he “was unable to understand that his actions were wrong.” This finding allows Mr. Gallagher to potentially have a claim to his mother’s life insurance policy.

In Canada, a  similar finding is known as NCRMD (Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder). If this case took place in Canada, it is likely that Mr. Gallagher would have been found NCRMD. This raises the important question of whether an individual, who is not convicted of murder, but has killed somebody, is still able to claim the proceeds as a beneficiary a testator’s estate or life insurance.

In the case of Nordstrom v. Baumann, [1962] SCR 147, Justice Ritchie stated, “The real issue before the trial judge was whether or not … the appellant was insane to such an extent as to relieve her of the taint of criminality which both counsel agreed would otherwise have precluded her from sharing in her husband’s estate under the rule of public policy.“ The court held that the public policy slayer rule does not apply if the individual was found NCRMD at the time of the killing. Furthermore, in the case of Dreger (Re), [1976] O.J. No. 2125 (H.C.J.), the court held that “[the] rule of public policy [that a person found not guilty for murder] cannot receive property under the will…the only exception to this rule is that a person of unsound mind is not so disqualified from receiving a benefit under the will of a person he has killed while in law insane.“ Lastly, the recent case of Dhingra v. Dhingra Estate, 2012 ONCA 261, upheld a similar finding and allowed the NCRMD individual to apply for the deceased`s life insurance policy.

The law in Ontario seems to uphold the principle that a mentally ill individual who was unable to understand the consequences of their actions should not be automatically disentitled to life insurance proceeds.

Thanks for reading,

Ian M. Hull

Other Articles You Might be Interested In

Red flags when applying for Life Insurance

Life Insurance Fraud and Faking Your Own Death

No-Fault Inheritance

04 Jan

The Need to Diversify

David Freedman Estate & Trust, Estate Planning, General Interest, In the News, Passing of Accounts, Uncategorized Tags: , , , 0 Comments

stocksnap_pchsij30cxHappy new year everyone!

I’m sure that we’re all a bit sluggish coming back from the holidays, but hopefully we’ll find the transition not too bad. By the way, did you know that Disney had a $67M life insurance policy on the life of Carrie Fisher?

I was reading through a bunch of recent cases on the weekend to catch up with recent developments, with the usual types of issues being raised (good news: nothing too major happened in the last couple of weeks). I enjoyed reading the Hon. Mr. Justice Bale’s short judgment in Mowry v Groome, 2016 ONSC 7850 (Ont. S.C.J). This was a contested passing of accounts but one in which the beneficiaries succeeded against the trustee for partial compensation for investment losses of about $165,000. Here there was a failure to diversify the estate’s portfolio in favour of retaining and renovating the deceased’s residence. It is a well-reasoned judgment that points out the need for a sensible investment plan – “[t]he whole purpose of diversification is to avoid the losses which can occur in the event of such unanticipated market events” as Justice Bale explained – rather than something more speculative.

Have a nice day!

David

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET