Neiman v. Hurff
11 N.J. 55, 93 A.2d 345, 1952 N.J. LEXIS 219 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A murderer who kills their co-tenant cannot acquire the victim's property interest through the right of survivorship. Although legal title passes to the murderer to avoid a statutory forfeiture of estate, equity imposes a constructive trust on the property for the benefit of the victim's estate.
Facts:
- A husband and his wife owned a residence as tenants by the entirety.
- The couple also owned shares of corporate stock as joint tenants.
- The wife's will designated the Damon Runyon Memorial Fund for Cancer Research, Inc. as her sole beneficiary.
- On July 31, 1950, the husband killed his wife.
- The husband subsequently pleaded non vult to an indictment for second degree murder.
Procedural Posture:
- Alberta A. Neiman, as executrix of the decedent's estate, filed a suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division (trial court), against the defendant husband.
- The trial court ruled that the defendant held the real and personal property as a trustee for himself and the beneficiary of his wife's will, the Cancer Fund.
- The trial court imposed a lien on the property in favor of the Cancer Fund for a calculated amount representing the Fund's interest.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
- The plaintiff executrix, as appellee, filed a cross-appeal.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey certified the case on its own motion, taking it from the Appellate Division before it could be heard there.
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 husband who murders his wife acquire absolute ownership of property they held as tenants by the entirety and joint tenants through the right of survivorship?
Opinions:
Majority - Vanderbilt, C. J.
No. A murderer cannot acquire absolute ownership of jointly held property by virtue of his crime. To permit a murderer to retain title acquired by his crime is abhorrent to the common law principle that no one shall be allowed to profit by his own wrong. At the same time, completely divesting the murderer of all legal title would violate the state statute against forfeiture of estate for criminal convictions. The proper equitable remedy is to allow legal title to pass to the murderer but to treat him as a constructive trustee of the property for the benefit of the victim's estate. Because the murderer's wrongful act prevented the natural determination of survivorship, equity will presume that the victim would have outlived the murderer. Therefore, the murderer retains only a life estate in his one-half interest of the property, while the victim's estate receives the other half interest plus the remainder interest in the murderer's half.
Analysis:
This case establishes New Jersey's judicial "slayer rule" for jointly owned property. By adopting the constructive trust approach, the court navigates between two competing principles: the common law maxim against profiting from one's own wrong and a state statute prohibiting criminal convictions from causing a "forfeiture of estate." The decision creates a clear precedent that prevents a killer from gaining the full benefit of survivorship rights while still recognizing their pre-existing property interest. The court's equitable presumption that the victim would have outlived the murderer provides a practical, if legally fictitious, method for justly dividing the property.
