Lakatos v. Estate of Billotti
1998 W. Va. LEXIS 167, 203 W.Va. 553, 509 S.E.2d 594 (1998)
Rule of Law:
West Virginia's slayer statute, W.Va.Code § 42-4-2, applies to property held in joint tenancy with the right of survivorship, preventing a felonious killer from acquiring any interest and directing the property to the victim's heirs as if the slayer had predeceased the victim.
Facts:
- Frank J. Billotti and Carolyn Sue Billotti owned three parcels of real estate, with two parcels held as joint tenants with the right of survivorship and one as tenants in common.
- On October 9, 1982, Frank Billotti murdered his wife, Carolyn Billotti, and their two daughters.
- Carolyn Billotti died intestate, and her only legal heirs were her husband, Frank Billotti, and her parents, Andrew and Virginia Lakatos.
- Frank Billotti was convicted of the murders and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
- On November 15, 1982, Frank Billotti conveyed the two properties he held in joint tenancy with his wife to his mother, Rose Ann Billotti, without consideration.
- On January 11, 1990, Rose Ann Billotti conveyed the two properties to a straw party, Ellen F. Harner, who contemporaneously conveyed the properties back to Frank J. Billotti and Rose Ann Billotti.
- Frank Billotti died in prison on November 28, 1996.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew and Virginia Lakatos filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, seeking partition of three parcels of real estate owned by Carolyn Billotti and Frank Billotti.
- The circuit court granted the request for partition of the property held as tenants in common and ordered its sale at public auction.
- The circuit court denied the request for partition of the two parcels held in joint tenancy, citing State ex rel. Miller v. Sencindiver.
- Andrew and Virginia Lakatos (appellants) appealed the circuit court’s order as it related to the denial of partition of the properties held in joint tenancy to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, with Rose Ann Billotti as the appellee.
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 West Virginia's slayer statute, W.Va.Code § 42-4-2, apply to property held in joint tenancy with the right of survivorship, thereby preventing a joint tenant who feloniously kills their co-tenant from acquiring the victim's interest, and instead passing it to the victim's heirs?
Opinions:
Majority - Maynard, Justice
Yes, West Virginia's slayer statute, W.Va.Code § 42-4-2, applies to property held in joint tenancy with the right of survivorship, thereby preventing a joint tenant who feloniously kills their co-tenant from acquiring the victim's interest, and instead passing the entire property to the victim's heirs as if the slayer had predeceased the victim. The Court revisited and overruled its prior holding in State ex rel. Miller v. Sencindiver, which had narrowly interpreted the phrase 'or otherwise' in the slayer statute. The Court now holds that 'or otherwise' in W.Va.Code § 42-4-2 encompasses 'any and every other way one could take property, including joint tenancy with the right of survivorship.' This interpretation aligns with the clear legislative intent and the strong public policy against allowing a murderer to profit from their crime, as established in precedents like Johnston v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hill. The Court found it 'unthinkable' that the Legislature intended for a killer to benefit from homicide, citing persuasive reasoning from In re Cox' Estate. Therefore, upon Carolyn Billotti's death, the entire property held in joint tenancy passes to her heirs (Andrew and Virginia Lakatos) as if Frank Billotti had predeceased her, in accordance with the statutory language that 'the money or the property to which the person so convicted would otherwise have been entitled shall go to the person or persons who would have taken the same if the person so convicted had been dead at the date of the death of the one killed.' This conclusion is further supported by the equitable maxim that no man should profit from his own wrong.
Analysis:
This case significantly altered West Virginia property law by explicitly extending the application of its slayer statute to joint tenancies, directly overturning a prior precedent that had limited its scope. The decision reinforces the fundamental public policy that wrongdoers should not profit from their crimes, even when property rights are seemingly vested through traditional conveyances. By clarifying that 'or otherwise' in the statute includes all forms of property acquisition, the court provides a comprehensive mechanism for the disposition of such property, ensuring it passes to the victim's heirs rather than the slayer or their beneficiaries, thereby preventing the perversion of justice and potential future attempts to circumvent the statute through intermediate transfers.
