Plumley v. Bledsoe

West Virginia Supreme Court
2005 W. Va. LEXIS 13, 216 W. Va. 735, 613 S.E.2d 102 (2005)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the common-law "slayer rule," a person who unlawfully and intentionally kills another is treated as if they predeceased the victim for inheritance purposes. This legal presumption applies even without a criminal conviction and will prevent the slayer's heirs from taking the slayer's share if the decedent's will provides for an alternate beneficiary.

Facts:

On August 3, 2001, Margaret Plumley executed a will.
The will left the remainder of her estate to be divided equally between her two sons, Larry Plumley and Ronald Plumley.
The will specified that if either son died before Margaret, the surviving son would receive the entire residual estate.
On March 19, 2002, Larry Plumley intentionally shot and killed his mother, Margaret Plumley.
On or about March 26, 2002, Larry Plumley died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Lynette Bledsoe is the daughter and heir of Larry Plumley.

Procedural Posture:

A declaratory judgment action was initiated in the circuit court to determine the proper distribution of Margaret Plumley's residual estate.
The circuit court conducted a bench trial and found by a preponderance of the evidence that Larry Plumley had intentionally and unlawfully killed his mother.
The circuit court ruled in favor of Ronald Plumley, awarding him the entire residual estate.
Lynette Bledsoe, the appellant, appealed the circuit court's decision to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

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 common-law 'slayer rule' create a legal presumption that an unconvicted killer predeceased their victim, thereby triggering a survivorship clause in the victim's will that diverts the killer's share to another beneficiary and away from the killer's heir?

Opinions:

Majority - Starcher, Justice.

Yes. The common-law 'slayer rule' creates a legal presumption that a killer predeceased their victim, which applies even without a criminal conviction. The court reasoned that the state's slayer statute, W.Va. Code, 42-4-2, which explicitly creates this 'predecease presumption' for convicted killers, is a codification of the broader common-law principle, not a limitation on it. To avoid inconsistent outcomes, such as when a slayer's suicide prevents a conviction, the remedy of the predecease presumption must also apply in common-law cases. Applying this presumption, Larry Plumley is legally considered to have died before his mother, Margaret. This triggers the survivorship clause in Margaret's will, which explicitly directs that the entire residual estate goes to the surviving son, Ronald Plumley. The court found no equitable principles that would override this result, as the will itself demonstrated the testator's intent under these circumstances.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies that the 'predecease presumption' remedy found in West Virginia's slayer statute also applies to the state's common-law slayer rule, ensuring consistency regardless of whether a killer is criminally convicted. The case solidifies the principle that a killer cannot benefit from their crime, even indirectly through their heirs, when the victim's will contains a clear survivorship clause. This holding prevents slayers from circumventing the rule through suicide and reinforces that the testator's expressed intent is a paramount consideration, even when it results in disinheriting the slayer's innocent child.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Plumley v. Bledsoe (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature