Comments on Georgia Business Blog: Benoit Estate A Mess

No matter if you die first, last, or in the middle...

2007-08-16T18:03:00.000-04:00

No matter if you die first, last, or in the middle, you still have an estate. When you die, whatever you own or have rights to, all that goes into your estate. What goes into the estate is affected by the order of death, however.

The "Slayer Law" only affects whether you can inherit from the person that you kill (which for clarity's sake, you cannot). Thus, in this case, Chris Benoit is not able to inherit from his wife, even though she died before he did. That does not mean that his assets are removed from his estate.

Ignoring the Slayers law for a moment, Chris kills his wife. Her estate goes to her spouse and her children according to the rules of intestacy. Then Chris kills his son; his son's estate, containing a portion of his now dead wife's estate, goes to Chris. Chris inherits anything his wife owned or had rights to. Now he commits suicide. His estate, including all of that his wife once had, goes to his next of kin. That would be his two children from the previous marriage. But, bring back the slayer's law. Neither the slayer nor his heirs are allowed to take through the intestacy in this situation. In order to accomplish that task, we treat it as if Chris died first.

So Chris dies first. His estate goes to his children and his wife. Then we go back to the previous discussion on who dies first and where the estates go from there.

Short answer to your question, Anonymous, is that yes, Chris Benoit still has an estate. He still had assets that he owned and had rights to at the time of his death. The slayer law just prohibits him from inheriting his wife or his son's estates.

Could be wrong here but you mentioned,it is possib...

2007-08-16T17:45:00.000-04:00

Could be wrong here but you mentioned,it is possible that the estates of Daniel Benoit and Nancy Benoit have the right to sue the estate of Chris Benoit for wrongful death.
Daniel's next-of-kin are the
children from the first marriage.
Nancy's are her parents.
And if Chris is considered 1st to die "slayer law" does he even have an estate? Very confusing. Hopefully, it gets settled without
too much pain.

Ah, the wonderful world of intestacy statutes.
2007-08-16T14:34:00.000-04:00
Ah, the wonderful world of intestacy statutes.

Chris dies first according to the Slayer Statute. His estate goes to his wife and his children, of which he has three. His wife takes her 1/3 share of his estate and each of his children split the remaining 2/3 equally, for 2/9 share each.

Now if Chris's wife Nancy dies first, her 1/3 goes to Daniel, so he has all of his mother's plus the 1/3 of his father's estate his mother just inherited. He would now have 5/9 of his father's original estate.

But if Daniel died first, his 2/9 share goes to his mother for a total 5/9 share of the estate.

Thus, they are not really fighting over 100% of the estate, only about 55% of Chris's estate plus anything that was in Nancy's estate, separate from Chris's assets. Because of issues like joint ownership, Nancy's estate could be much more as soon as Chris is declared dead. Thus, if the homes, for example, were titled in both names with a right of survivorship, then Nancy takes them outside of the estate. Same with bank accounts, retirement accounts, and other similar assets. Normally, these jointly held assets make up a considerable amount of any estate. The amount that could go to his children from the previous marriage could be quite small.

Another complicating factor is that the estates of Daniel Benoit and Nancy Benoit have the right to sue the estate of Chris Benoit for wrongful death.

I'm I right to think if Daniel
died first the t...

2007-08-16T13:53:00.000-04:00

I'm I right to think if Daniel
died first the two suriving children from the previous marriage would still get a portion.
Slayer law Chris died first.
Rules of inheritance when a decedent dies without a will
* If there are children, the spouse shares equally with the children, per stirpes, but the spouse’s portion shall not be less than a one third share.

Interesting that you say "leave your morality at t...

2007-08-15T23:07:00.000-04:00

Interesting that you say "leave your morality at the door." Yes, I am a lawyer. And yes, I understand that our legal system often times leaves things to be desired. But the probate system is generally one area where the right thing happens. Furthermore, what exactly in my post showed that I was advocating for one side or the other? The reason for the post in the first place was to show how complicated seemingly "easy" cases can get, and the ever-present need for those able to do so to complete a viable estate plan, looking at all the worst case scenarios such as this.

Let's play "supreme commander of the [legal] universe" for a day. You can change the laws as it stands right now. How would you change the Georgia intestacy statutes to have the fairest outcome in this and in every case similar to this one? Don't forget that I can come back with hypotheticals to challenge your system.

Even if "fairness dictates both families have some claim on the estate," what exactly is the value of the claim on the estate? Do the two warring sides split the estate 50-50? Is there some other equitable way to split it, perhaps based on need, future educational needs (the two half-siblings will need to go to college, after all), or some kind of family limited partnership or trust?

Leave your morality at the door -- the lawyers are...

2007-08-15T19:39:00.000-04:00