Duncan v. Vassaur
550 P.2d 929 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When one joint tenant feloniously kills another, the act severs the joint tenancy, destroying the right of survivorship and converting the ownership into a tenancy in common. The property is then divided equally, with one half going to the estate of the deceased victim and the other half to the slayer.
Facts:
- Edgar Vassaur, Jr. owned several lots of real estate prior to his marriage.
- After marrying Betty E. Vassaur, he conveyed the property to himself and Betty as joint tenants on June 30, 1969.
- On August 9, 1971, Betty E. Vassaur shot and killed her husband, Edgar Vassaur, Jr.
- After being charged with first-degree manslaughter, Betty E. Vassaur conveyed the property to her father, William M. Duncan, on September 30, 1971.
Procedural Posture:
- William M. Duncan, the grantee, filed an action in an Oklahoma trial court to quiet title to the real estate against the estate of Edgar Vassaur, Jr.
- Edgar Vassaur, Sr., as administrator of his son's estate, filed an answer and cross-petition asserting ownership of one-half of the property and claiming liens on the other half.
- Duncan demurred to the cross-petition and moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- The trial court sustained Duncan's demurrer, dismissed the estate's cross-petition, and granted Duncan's motion for judgment on the pleadings, effectively giving him full title.
- The administrator of the estate, Edgar Vassaur, Sr., appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a joint tenant who feloniously kills their co-tenant forfeit their entire interest in the property under Oklahoma's slayer statute, or does the killing sever the joint tenancy and convert it into a tenancy in common?
Opinions:
Majority - Davison, Justice
No, the joint tenant does not forfeit their entire interest; rather, the felonious killing severs the joint tenancy and converts it into a tenancy in common. The court reasoned that the act of murder is inconsistent with the continued existence of a joint tenancy, which includes the right of survivorship. While Oklahoma's slayer statute prevents inheritance, it does not directly address joint tenancy. The court, looking at various approaches from other jurisdictions, adopted what it considered the 'most equitable solution.' It held that allowing the slayer to take the entire property would be to profit from their crime, while complete forfeiture would ignore the slayer's pre-existing property interest. Therefore, the killing terminates the joint tenancy, changing it to a tenancy in common where each party's estate holds a one-half interest.
Analysis:
This case established a controlling precedent in Oklahoma for the disposition of property held in joint tenancy when one tenant kills another. By choosing the 'severance' theory over other approaches like forfeiture or imposing a constructive trust on the whole property, the court created a clear, equitable rule. This decision distinguishes property passing by survivorship from property passing by inheritance under the state's slayer statute, filling a gap in the law. The ruling ensures that a slayer cannot profit from their crime by acquiring the victim's share, while also protecting the slayer's own pre-existing, undivided one-half interest in the property.
Unlock the full brief for Duncan v. Vassaur