1. Describe the factual situation that led to the odd circumstances of how the slayer stood to gain the decedent’s property.

2. What argument is made that there may not be a good line to draw on inheritance of an estate?

3. Why does the court hold that this case is a clear one?

Deanna Edwards Palladino and Brandon Palladino were high school sweethearts who married in 2007. On December 17, 2008, Brandon killed his mother-in-law, Dianne Edwards (hereinafter the decedent), by strangling her to death. The decedent’s will bequeathed her entire estate to Deanna, her only child. In October 2009, Brandon was indicted for the crime of murder in the second degree for causing the death of the decedent. Deanna, who was not criminally charged in connection with the decedent’s death, stood by Brandon and believed in his innocence.

In February 2010, approximately 14 months after her mother’s death, Deanna died intestate of an accidental drug overdose. Although the decedent’s will had been admitted to probate in October 2009, none of the decedent’s estate had been distributed to Deanna prior to Deanna’s death. Deanna was survived by one distributee, Brandon. Brandon designated his mother, Donna DiRusso, as the administrator of Deanna’s estate. According to DiRusso’s petition for letters of administration, Deanna’s estate consisted only of funds received as the beneficiary of the decedent’s retirement plan and the expected inheritance from the decedent.

On October 12, 2010, approximately 10 months after Deanna’s death, Brandon pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree, in connection with the death of the decedent. During the plea proceeding, Brandon admitted to entering the decedent’s home on December 17, 2008, for the purpose of taking her jewelry. While Brandon was in the decedent’s bedroom taking jewelry from her jewelry box, the decedent returned home and the two got into a physical fight. Brandon placed the decedent in a choke hold and squeezed as the decedent was resisting and scratching him. Brandon admitted that he intended to cause the decedent serious physical injury but asserted that he did not intend to kill her. However, Brandon subsequently moved for leave to file a late notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction, and his motion was granted by this Court by decision and order dated April 4, 2012.

The decedent’s estranged sister, Donna Larsen, submitted objections to the account arguing that Brandon forfeited his interest in any property that would pass to him from the decedent’s estate through Deanna’s estate, due to his conviction for causing the decedent’s death.

DiRusso moved to dismiss the objections, and Larsen cross-moved for summary judgment on the objections. In a decision and order dated March 28, 2012, the Surrogate’s Court denied DiRusso’s motion and granted Larsen’s motion in part. DiRusso appealed.

JUDICIAL OPINION

HALL, Judge … The principle that a wrongdoer may not profit from his or her wrongdoing is deeply rooted in this State’s common law. In 1889, the Court of Appeals decided the seminal case of Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506, 22 N.E. 188. In Riggs, a grandson, who had intentionally killed his grandfather in order to ensure his inheritance, was prevented from inheriting under the grandfather’s will. In reaching this determination, the Court of Appeals held that, “[n]o one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.” In short, the Riggs rule “prevents wrongdoers from acquiring a property interest, or otherwise profiting from their own wrongdoing.” …………