In re Estate of Mahoney
220 A.2d 475 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Vermont law, legal title to a decedent's property passes to an heir who feloniously killed the decedent according to the statutes of descent and distribution, but a court of equity may impose a constructive trust to prevent the slayer from being unjustly enriched by the wrongful act.
Facts:
- Howard Mahoney and Charlotte Mahoney were married.
- On May 6, 1961, Howard Mahoney died from gunshot wounds inflicted by his wife, Charlotte Mahoney.
- Howard Mahoney died intestate, meaning he did not have a will.
- Howard Mahoney was survived by his wife, Charlotte, and his parents, but he had no children.
Procedural Posture:
- Charlotte Mahoney was tried for murder in the Addison County Court.
- A jury convicted Charlotte Mahoney of manslaughter in March 1962.
- Howard Mahoney's father, Mark Mahoney, was appointed administrator of his estate.
- The Probate Court for the District of Franklin held a hearing and entered a judgment decreeing the entire estate to Howard Mahoney's parents.
- Charlotte Mahoney, the widow, appealed the Probate Court's judgment to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a surviving spouse who was convicted of manslaughter for killing the decedent inherit from the decedent's estate under Vermont's statutes of descent and distribution?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
Yes. A surviving spouse who killed the decedent may take legal title to the estate under the statutes of descent, but equity will treat the slayer as a constructive trustee of the property for the benefit of the decedent's other heirs. The court adopted the constructive trust doctrine, rejecting the approaches of either strictly applying the statute to let the slayer keep the property or judicially rewriting the statute to prevent title from passing. The court reasoned that this approach preserves the statutory scheme—allowing legal title to pass—while using the equitable power of the courts to prevent the unconscionable result of a killer profiting from their crime. The court distinguished between voluntary manslaughter (an intentional killing), where a constructive trust is appropriate, and involuntary manslaughter, where it is not. The court also held that the Probate Court lacks jurisdiction to impose a constructive trust; such an equitable remedy must be sought in the Court of Chancery, where the intentional killing must be proven independently of any criminal conviction.
Concurring - Shangraw, J.
Yes, but this approach is impractical. The concurring opinion agrees with the legal result but expresses concern over the burden and expense the constructive trust doctrine places on the decedent's family. Requiring the heirs to initiate a new lawsuit in a different court and re-litigate the criminal issue of whether the killing was intentional can be prohibitively expensive, especially for a small estate. The opinion suggests that the best solution would be for the legislature to enact a specific 'slayer statute' to provide a clear and efficient process for these situations.
Analysis:
This case established the governing common law principle in Vermont for so-called 'slayer' cases where no specific statute exists. By adopting the constructive trust doctrine, the court created a precedential framework that balances the plain language of probate statutes with the equitable maxim that no one should profit from their own wrong. This decision clarifies the distinct jurisdictional roles of the Probate Court and the Court of Chancery, requiring heirs to pursue equitable remedies in the latter. The ruling also sets a significant procedural hurdle, as it requires the heirs to prove the intentional nature of the killing in a civil proceeding, rather than simply relying on a prior criminal conviction.
Unlock the full brief for In re Estate of Mahoney