Slayer Statute in Florida Probate

The Slayer Statute in Florida exists to stop individuals from profiting from their own wrongdoing. Specifically, it bars a person who unlawfully and intentionally kills another from receiving any interest in the deceased’s estate through probate. This legal principle ensures that killers do not inherit property, life insurance proceeds, or other assets from their victims.

Florida probate law draws a distinct line: a convicted killer cannot benefit from the estate of the person they murdered. The statute operates under the principle that wrongdoing should not generate reward. For anyone involved in estate planning, administration, or litigation within the state, understanding Florida’s approach to this issue is not just relevant — it determines who gets what when a homicide intersects with inheritance.

How do courts determine intentional killing? What if the accused is acquitted or found guilty of a lesser charge? And how does the law affect real property, joint accounts, or trusts? This overview breaks down the implications of the slayer rule under Florida probate laws to clarify who retains — and who forfeits — their claim to property when foul play is involved.

Understanding the Slayer Statute in Florida Probate

Definition and Origin of the Concept

The Slayer Statute embodies an established legal doctrine rooted in the maxim that no individual should profit from their own misconduct. This doctrine first gained formal recognition in U.S. jurisprudence in the early 20th century, with courts addressing the issue of inheritance by individuals who had intentionally caused the death of a decedent. The term “slayer rule” emerged from these judicial decisions and was later codified into statutory law in many states, including Florida.

Core Legal Principle: “A Person Should Not Profit from Their Wrongdoing”

At the heart of the Slayer Statute lies the foundational principle that a murderer forfeits any right to benefit from the death of their victim. This concept applies regardless of the method of inheritance—whether through a will, trust, or the laws of intestate succession. In Florida, this principle operates under the presumption that public policy prohibits unjust enrichment through criminal acts involving lethal violence.

Key Terms Defined

• Intentional Killing: The statute applies exclusively to intentional and unlawful killings. Accidental death or deaths resulting from negligence do not trigger disqualification under this rule.
• Inheritance: This includes property or assets the slayer would have received from the deceased’s estate under a will, trust, or intestate distribution.
• Disqualification: Upon meeting the legal criteria, the individual responsible for the decedent’s death is legally barred from receiving any part of the deceased’s estate.

Florida’s Slayer Statute does not create a new crime but enforces civil consequences for criminal acts. The statute functions as a barrier, ensuring that legal title and financial interests do not pass from victim to killer. This policy-driven approach reinforces the integrity of the probate system while aligning with broader principles of justice and equity.

Why the Slayer Statute Exists in Florida Probate Law

Preventing Unjust Enrichment of a Killer

A foundational principle behind Florida’s Slayer Statute is this: no individual should profit from a wrongful act. If someone intentionally kills another person, Florida law blocks that individual from receiving any benefits from the victim’s estate. This applies whether the killer was named in a will or stood to inherit under intestate succession laws.

By enforcing this rule, the law eliminates situations where a slayer might leverage familial relationships for material gain through violence. Probate courts apply this principle consistently to ensure the estate passes to alternate beneficiaries or heirs who were not involved in the wrongful act.

Upholding Moral and Public Policy Standards

Beyond legal correctness, the statute reflects public values. Courts do not operate solely on the basis of ownership rights—they reflect societal expectations. Disinheriting a killer aligns with fundamental ethical standards that have broad community support.

This statutory stance reinforces the notion that estate distribution is not just a financial transaction but also a moral judgment. It communicates that violence negates inheritance rights, regardless of familial ties or the decedent’s original intentions.

Protecting the Integrity of the Probate Process

Probate relies on fairness and predictability. The Slayer Statute preserves those qualities by creating a clear legal consequence for intentional acts of homicide. When this rule is applied, it assures all parties—heirs, beneficiaries, creditors—that the process has not been manipulated by foul play.

A system without this safeguard would be vulnerable to abuse, and confidence in judicial outcomes would erode. By excluding individuals who commit egregious acts, the law ensures the probate process remains just and impartial.

Florida Statute §732.802: Legal Framework

Overview of the Florida-specific Slayer Statute

Florida Statute §732.802 governs situations where a person who stands to inherit is legally disqualified due to unlawfully killing the decedent. This provision embodies the legal principle that no individual should profit from their wrongful acts, aligning criminal accountability with civil consequences. The law applies throughout the probate process and establishes a clear standard for disinheritance in cases involving homicide.

Text Summary and Legislative Intent

The statute explicitly states that a surviving person who unlawfully and intentionally kills the decedent forfeits all rights to the decedent’s estate. That prohibition extends to both testate (with a will) and intestate (without a will) distributions. Florida’s legislature designed §732.802 not to serve as an additional criminal penalty, but as a civil mechanism to mirror public policy: offenders do not benefit from their malfeasance.

The statute reads in part: “A surviving person who unlawfully and intentionally kills or participates in procuring the death of the decedent is not entitled to any benefits under the will or under the law of intestate succession.” The disqualified individual is treated “as if he or she predeceased the decedent,” which completely severs any inheritance rights stemming from the estate.

Applicability in Both Wills and Intestate Succession Cases

The reach of Florida’s Slayer Statute is comprehensive, applying regardless of whether the decedent died with or without a will. If a will exists and names the slayer as a beneficiary, that provision becomes void. In intestate succession cases, the slayer is excluded from the statutory distribution hierarchy. In both circumstances, the estate behaves as though the killer died before the decedent, ensuring that the slayer’s family members do not indirectly inherit through per stirpes succession either.

• In will-based estates, any bequest, devise, or inheritance to the slayer is revoked.
• In intestacy, the slayer is excluded from statutory heirship.
• For jointly-owned property, this statute severs the right of survivorship.

By applying this treatment uniformly, the statute maintains consistency in the administration of estates, removes ambiguity in probate proceedings, and reinforces the legal and moral boundaries associated with homicidal conduct.

Who Is Disqualified Under the Slayer Statute?

Heirs or Beneficiaries Who Intentionally Kill the Decedent

Florida law disqualifies any individual who unlawfully and intentionally kills a decedent from receiving any benefit under the decedent’s will, trust, or through intestate succession. This includes biological heirs, beneficiaries named in testamentary documents, joint account holders, and designated recipients on payable-on-death accounts.

The statutory language in Florida Statute §732.802 explicitly strips such individuals of all rights to inherit or otherwise financially benefit from the estate of the person they killed. The law treats such individuals as though they predeceased the victim.

Unlawful and Intentional Killing: A Legal Standard

The disqualification only applies if the killing was both unlawful and intentional. This distinction is critical. The statute does not apply to accidental deaths, self-defense actions, or killings found to be legally justified. Courts do not consider manslaughter by negligence or unintentional homicide as disqualifying under the statute.

The law hinges on the specific legal meaning of “intentional,” which requires a deliberate act with the purpose of causing death or grievous bodily harm. Intent can be inferred from circumstances, supported by direct or circumstantial evidence, and does not always require a criminal conviction.

Who Meets the Legal Definition?

A “person who unlawfully and intentionally kills the decedent” includes individuals who:

• Have been convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter of the decedent.
• Are determined in a civil proceeding to have intentionally and unlawfully caused the decedent’s death.
• Acted as a principal, aider, or abettor in the killing.

Florida courts have applied this definition in both criminally and civilly adjudicated cases. Even without a criminal conviction, probate courts have the authority to determine disqualification during estate administration using the lower burden of proof required for civil cases.

Consider this: if a named beneficiary in a will is later found responsible for the decedent’s death during settlement proceedings, does that clause still stand? Under the slayer statute, it does not. The individual is legally treated as having died before the decedent, forfeiting all inheritance rights as if they had not been named at all.

How the Standard of Proof Shapes Slayer Statute Cases in Florida Probate

Conviction Not Required for Disqualification

Under Florida’s slayer statute, disqualification from inheriting does not hinge on a criminal conviction. An heir accused of unlawfully killing the decedent can be barred from receiving a share of the estate even if no criminal charges are filed—or if the charges fail to result in a conviction. The probate court applies its own evidentiary standard, separate from the criminal justice system.

Civil Court Standard: Preponderance of the Evidence

Florida probate courts rely on the civil standard of proof when applying the slayer statute. That standard, known as the preponderance of the evidence, requires that the allegations against the heir be more likely true than not. This means a judge must find that there is a greater than 50% likelihood the heir unlawfully and intentionally caused the death of the decedent.

This bar is significantly lower than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which demands near-certainty before issuing a conviction. In probate, the judge considers witness testimony, circumstantial facts, forensic reports, and any available documentation—evaluating everything in light of the lower civil threshold.

Impact When No Criminal Conviction Exists

The absence of a conviction does not shield an heir from the slayer statute’s consequences. Civil proceedings in probate move independently of the criminal process. In many cases, prosecutors may decline to file charges due to lack of evidence from a criminal standpoint, while the same facts can still persuade a probate judge under the preponderance standard.

Take, for example, an heir who was the only person present at the time of an unexplained death, with motive and access to the means—but insufficient forensic proof to support a homicide charge. A criminal trial might never happen, or it could end in acquittal. Yet the probate court can still disinherit that heir if it concludes that the balance of probabilities points to intentional killing.

This approach ensures that wrongdoers do not benefit from legal technicalities or gaps in the criminal process. By allowing probate courts to enforce the slayer statute based on a more attainable burden of proof, Florida law closes the inheritance door firmly on those deemed responsible for a decedent’s death—even when criminal courts do not.

How Florida Courts Enforce the Slayer Statute in Probate

Initiating Proceedings Under the Slayer Statute

To trigger application of Florida’s slayer statute, interested parties must initiate formal probate proceedings and submit evidence indicating that a beneficiary may have unlawfully and intentionally caused the decedent’s death. This process often begins with the filing of a petition or motion in the probate court, asserting a claim under Florida Statute §732.802.

The initial step typically involves:

• Submitting a death certificate and any available law enforcement reports or criminal case records
• Petitioning the court to declare the alleged killer disqualified from taking under the will or by intestate succession
• Notifying all heirs, beneficiaries, and interested parties

Probate Court’s Role in Determining Disqualification

The probate court plays a central fact-finding role. It does not automatically follow a criminal court’s actions, although those outcomes can carry significant weight. If the individual was convicted of the unlawful killing, no additional findings are needed—the court will enforce statutory forfeiture. However, in the absence of a conviction, the probate court must evaluate all presented evidence.

Judges review witness testimony, forensic reports, police documents, and other admissible records to determine if the alleged killer’s actions meet the statutory threshold of an “unlawful and intentional” act. A separate evidentiary hearing may be scheduled solely to resolve the slayer issue.

Timeline and Burden of Proof

The timing of a slayer statute proceeding runs concurrently with probate administration. Courts often prioritize the matter early in the estate timeline to clarify distribution rights. Litigants must produce evidence promptly, or risk delaying the administration process.

The party seeking disqualification carries the burden of proof. In civil probate proceedings, this burden follows the preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, even if a criminal trial ends in acquittal, civil disqualification is still possible if sufficient evidence supports it under the reduced burden.

Have you considered how swiftly forensic and legal evidence must be collected to meet this standard? Delay can compromise the court’s ability to enforce the statute effectively.

How the Slayer Statute Alters Wills and Intestate Succession in Florida

Predeceased by Law: Effects on Named Beneficiaries

When a beneficiary is disqualified under Florida’s Slayer Statute, the law treats that individual as if they died before the decedent. This legal fiction applies even if the person is alive and would ordinarily be entitled to inherit. According to Florida Statute §732.802(2), this results in the complete forfeiture of any rights to receive property under the testator’s will.

For example, suppose a decedent left a will naming their spouse as the primary beneficiary, but that spouse is later adjudicated to have feloniously and intentionally caused the death. In that case, the will is applied as if the spouse had predeceased the testator, triggering any alternate or residuary clauses. If such clauses do not exist, the estate assets designated for the disqualified individual will pass according to Florida’s intestate succession statutes.

This statutory disinheritance overrides testamentary intent. The decedent’s expressed wishes in the will are nullified with respect to the slayer, regardless of any language to the contrary.

No Will? Here’s How Intestacy Is Restructured

The scenario changes when no valid will exists. Under Florida’s intestacy rules outlined in Chapter 732 of the Florida Statutes, assets are distributed to the decedent’s next of kin based on a statutory hierarchy. The Slayer Statute intervenes by disqualifying the slayer from any right to inherit, including through intestacy.

For instance, in a case where the decedent dies intestate and the natural heir (like a child or spouse) is proved to have committed an intentional killing, that heir is legally treated as deceased. The distribution then proceeds to the next eligible heirs, entirely bypassing the disqualified individual.

Successor Heirs and Property Redistribution

When the Slayer Statute removes a beneficiary or heir from the inheritance line, their share doesn’t simply disappear—it gets redistributed. The redistribution follows two paths depending on whether the estate is testate or intestate.

• Under a will: If alternate beneficiaries are designated in the will, they step into the disqualified person’s place. If no such alternates exist, the share is absorbed by the residuary estate or divided among other beneficiaries proportionally.
• Under intestacy: The statute triggers an automatic bypass, and the estate’s assets are divided among the next eligible heirs as if the slayer had died before the decedent. This could mean siblings, parents, or even distant relatives may inherit instead.

Because the Slayer Statute imposes a legal fiction of predeceasing, it activates contingent provisions in a will and accelerates generational distribution under intestate law. In practice, the property that would have flowed to the disqualified person reroutes according to established succession principles, ensuring the estate bypasses the killer entirely.

The Personal Representative’s Role in Slayer Statute Cases

Upholding Fiduciary Duties in High-Stakes Circumstances

When a personal representative suspects that a beneficiary may be disqualified under Florida’s Slayer Statute, their responsibilities shift into complex legal territory. This role is not passive. From the outset, the representative must take decisive action—gather evidence, secure estate assets, and collaborate with relevant authorities.

Investigating and Reporting Suspected Slayer Incidents

Florida law imposes specific fiduciary obligations on personal representatives. Under Fla. Stat. §733.602, they must act in the best interests of the estate and its rightful beneficiaries. In slayer scenarios, this means:

• Examining the details surrounding the decedent’s death
• Identifying potential conflicts between beneficiaries and the deceased
• Monitoring the progress of any related criminal or civil proceedings
• Maintaining detailed records of all findings related to the suspected slayer

Failing to investigate a claim of wrongful death connected to a named beneficiary may result in a breach of fiduciary duty. If sufficient suspicion arises, initiating a petition under Florida Statute §732.802 becomes not just prudent—it becomes a procedural obligation.

Working with Law Enforcement and Legal Counsel

Rarely does a personal representative navigate a slayer statute case alone. Coordination with homicide detectives, probate attorneys, and civil litigators becomes indispensable.

• Law enforcement provides criminal case updates, arrest data, and potential evidence useful in civil determinations.
• Probate counsel advises on admissibility of criminal case outcomes in probate court, especially when no conviction occurs.
• Litigators assist in filing complaints against the alleged slayer and seeking declaratory relief from the court.

Since the probate court operates under a civil evidentiary standard—preponderance of the evidence—the personal representative must assemble a case that aligns with judicial expectations even in the absence of a criminal conviction.

Freezing Asset Transfers Pending Court Rulings

Until the slayer issue is adjudicated, personal representatives have the power—and obligation—to restrict transfers of disputed assets. This includes:

• Suspending disbursements to the alleged slayer
• Blocking titles, deeds, and accounts from being co-conveyed
• Labeling estate assets as contested

Probate judges will not approve distributions to an individual under scrutiny until the court determines their eligibility. The representative enforces this embargo, ensuring that estate administration remains neutral and compliant.

Every action taken by the personal representative under the Slayer Statute framework echoes throughout the probate process. Their conduct determines whether wrongful enrichment occurs—or is stopped in its tracks.

Disruption of Joint Assets and Survivorship Rights Under Florida’s Slayer Statute

Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship: When One Owner Kills the Other

Florida law treats joint ownership differently when a slayer is involved. In standard cases of joint tenancy with right of survivorship, the surviving owner automatically absorbs the deceased’s share. But if the surviving owner unlawfully and intentionally kills the co-owner, Florida Statute §732.802 strips that survivorship right.

The result: the slayer cannot lawfully benefit from the death they caused. Courts treat the joint tenancy as though the killer predeceased the victim. This legal fiction severs the right of survivorship, converting the tenancy into a tenancy in common retroactively. That means the decedent’s share passes according to their will or, if there is none, under Florida’s intestacy laws, while the killer retains only their original share.

Application to Bank Accounts, Property Titles, and Retirement Plans

The statute’s reach extends beyond real estate. Any jointly held asset—whether a bank account, a brokerage account, or a retirement plan—faces the same recalibration under the Slayer Statute.

• Bank Accounts: Financial institutions typically release funds to surviving joint owners without probate. However, if the survivor is a slayer, courts can intervene and freeze distribution. The slayer forfeits access to the victim’s share.
• Property Titles: For real estate held in joint tenancy or as tenants by the entirety, the murderer gets blocked from acquiring the victim’s interest. The property interest instead becomes part of the probate estate.
• Retirement Plans: If the killer was named beneficiary on pensions or IRAs, courts revoke the designation and treat the account as if the slayer predeceased the holder. The plan then pays out to contingent beneficiaries or reverts to the estate.

Judicial Reallocation of Joint Property

Florida courts approach slayer cases involving joint assets with equitable correction. Judges recalculate ownership shares, reallocating the victim’s portion away from the killer. The courts may direct that portion to heirs, devisees, or creditors of the estate depending on the probate hierarchy.

This redistribution doesn’t require a criminal conviction. Judges rely on the preponderance of the evidence standard in civil court to determine liability. Once the court finds the slayer disqualified, it enforces the reallocation regardless of how the asset was titled.

The outcome is clear: slayers lose access to joint asset benefits that would arise solely because of the death they caused. Rights rooted in survivorship become void, and probate courts intervene to redirect those assets through lawful channels.

How Florida Courts Interpret the Slayer Statute: Key Cases and Legal Precedents

Practical Application Through Judicial Decisions

Florida case law has shaped the practical enforcement of the Slayer Statute, refining its scope and clarifying gray areas. Courts have consistently upheld the principle that a person who unlawfully and intentionally kills another should not benefit from the victim’s estate. However, each case presents unique factual and legal challenges, and the rulings illustrate how judges interpret statutory language in real-world probate disputes.

Key Florida Cases Defining Enforcement

• Congleton v. Sansom, 664 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) In this landmark case, the court affirmed that a person need not be criminally convicted to be barred from inheritance. The decedent’s widow had shot and killed her husband but was found not guilty by reason of insanity in criminal court. In the probate proceeding, the court applied a civil standard of proof and still ruled that she was disqualified under Florida Statute §732.802. This case established the precedent that civil proceedings can independently support a finding under the Slayer Statute.
• In re Estate of Benson, 548 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) Here, the court addressed whether a son convicted of second-degree murder could inherit from his mother’s estate. The conviction supported the civil finding that the killing was intentional and unlawful. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to disqualify the son from taking under the will and through intestacy, reinforcing broad interpretation of “any rights” under the statute.

Legal Principles Extracted from Case Law

• Florida probate judges rely on the civil preponderance of the evidence standard, not the stricter criminal threshold.
• A criminal acquittal—or an insanity defense—does not prevent the statute from applying in probate court.
• Participation in a criminal conspiracy that leads to the decedent’s death, even without direct action, can trigger disqualification.
• Civil courts can independently examine facts surrounding a death to determine intent and unlawfulness for the purpose of probate.

These cases highlight a consistent judicial approach: the statute’s core intent—to prevent unjust enrichment—guides decision-making. Judges examine all available evidence, consider civil standards, and render decisions aligned with both the letter and spirit of the law.

When the Slayer Rule Doesn’t Apply: Exceptions and Limitations in Florida

Insanity and Legal Incompetence: When Mental State Alters Liability

Florida’s Slayer Statute — codified under §732.802 — does not automatically disqualify someone from receiving inheritance if they were legally insane at the time of the killing. The statute specifies that only a person who unlawfully and intentionally kills the decedent is barred. If the accused was declared insane or legally incompetent by a court, and could not understand the nature or wrongfulness of their actions, courts may choose not to apply the restriction. In such cases, expert psychiatric testimony becomes a critical factor, and burden of proof falls under civil standards — a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court interpretations have leaned on precedent established in wrongful death and criminal proceedings. For example, in Palmer v. State, Florida courts acknowledged that an insanity defense does not require total loss of control but must establish inability to discern right from wrong. The same framework informs probate cases under the Slayer Statute.

Suicides and Accidental Deaths: Outside the Statute’s Reach

The Slayer Statute applies solely to homicides — not to suicides or accidental deaths. If a beneficiary played a role in someone’s suicide, the statute doesn’t automatically disqualify them unless there’s explicit proof of coercion, fraud, or physical force. Emotional manipulation alone has not met the threshold in Florida rulings unless paired with other forms of unlawful intent.

In scenarios involving accidental deaths — like traffic collisions or misfires during recreational activities — courts examine whether the death resulted from reckless, negligent, or truly intentional behavior. Intent separates exclusion from inclusion: if intent to kill cannot be definitively established, the statute is not invoked.

Negligence vs. Intentional Killing: Drawing the Legal Distinction

• Negligence: A beneficiary who caused death through carelessness — for instance, medical mismanagement or failure to call for help — is not disqualified. Florida courts have repeatedly held that “unlawful and intentional” are the guiding qualifiers under the statute.
• Recklessness: Higher than negligence but still less than intent. Even in these cases, courts demand strong, clear evidence of purposefulness before applying the bar.
• Intentional conduct: When the act is premeditated or committed with purpose, the statute applies without exception.

Want a real-world contrast? In Congleton v. Sansom, the court refused to apply the Slayer Statute where a vehicle-related death lacked sufficient evidence of intent, despite gross negligence. The distinction shapes outcomes decisively.

How Florida Compares: Slayer Statutes Across the States

California, New York, and Texas: A Tri-State Perspective

Florida’s approach to the slayer rule stands out for its statutory precision, but how does it measure up against states like California, New York, and Texas?

• California: Governed by California Probate Code §250-259, this state bars any individual who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent from inheriting. The standard of proof aligns with Florida’s—clear and convincing evidence is sufficient even without a criminal conviction. However, California explicitly includes both intestate and testamentary property and addresses non-probate transfers such as life insurance or jointly held assets.
• New York: Under Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) § 4-1.6, New York requires a final criminal conviction for intentional killing to disqualify inheritance. Civil findings do not impact the application of the statute. This elevates the standard of exclusion and can delay enforcement during extended criminal proceedings.
• Texas: Texas Estates Code §201.058 disinherits someone who is “criminally responsible for the death of a decedent.” Like Florida, Texas allows a civil court to determine that guilt by a preponderance of the evidence, although its statutory language is less comprehensive when dealing with non-probate assets or revocable trusts.

Strict vs. Lenient Jurisdictions

States can be broadly categorized based on how aggressively they deny inheritance to wrongdoers. Several jurisdictions, such as Washington and Illinois, follow expansive interpretations that apply to constructive trusts, insurance policies, and survivorship benefits. These states often don’t require a criminal conviction and permit civil courts greater discretion.

In contrast, some states like Georgia and Louisiana restrict the application of the slayer rule to specific scenarios, requiring final criminal convictions before forfeiture applies. This limitation significantly narrows the rule’s utility in civil estate disputes.

Florida’s Position: Statutory Clarity and Broad Scope

Florida holds a leading position in terms of clarity and statutory completeness. Florida Statute §732.802 encompasses both probate and non-probate assets, allows civil adjudication under the clear and convincing evidence standard, and explicitly defines categories of disqualification. These features give Florida probate courts jurisdictional breadth and efficient enforcement capability unmatched by more rigid or ambiguous state rules.

Furthermore, Florida courts handle joint tenancies, insurance proceeds, and trust interests with consistent application of the slayer statute, reducing legal ambiguity. This consistency not only discourages litigation but also increases predictability for estate planners and probate professionals.

Ethical Dimensions in Applying the Slayer Statute

Balancing Due Process with Justice

Invoking the slayer statute in Florida probate cases forces courts and attorneys to walk the line between ensuring due process and delivering just outcomes. When a beneficiary is accused of causing the death of a decedent, the risk of prejudgment runs high. If the probate court applies the statute too aggressively before facts are fully vetted, property rights could be unjustly stripped. On the other hand, if enforcement is delayed or avoided, a convicted killer might still receive assets designated by will or by law.

Florida courts operate under a civil standard of proof for slayer statute proceedings—“greater weight of the evidence”—which is lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold used in criminal court. This lower burden raises ethical questions in cases where a criminal conviction has not occurred. Is it fair to disinherit based solely on circumstantial evidence presented in probate? The judicial system in Florida has affirmed that civil proceedings may proceed independently of criminal outcomes, but attorneys and judges must guard against allowing suspicion to substitute for substantiated fact.

Guarding Against Wrongful Allegations

Probate litigation invites conflict among family members who may have strained relationships or competing interests. In this environment, accusations under the slayer statute can become strategic weapons. Safeguards must be maintained to prevent heirs from using slayer allegations to manipulate estate distributions. Probate judges have the task of filtering genuine legal claims from baseless or malicious ones, which often requires thorough evidentiary hearings and close scrutiny of motive, opportunity, and physical evidence.

Attorneys representing estate beneficiaries have a professional responsibility to ensure claims brought under the slayer statute are grounded in fact and not fueled by personal vendettas. Ethical legal practice demands careful vetting of all allegations, especially when the stakes involve both inheritance rights and a person’s reputation.

Legal Ethics in Slayer Statute Proceedings

Attorneys navigating slayer statute cases operate under distinct professional obligations outlined in the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. For prosecution or estate counsel, this includes the duty to pursue legitimate claims without overreaching. Rule 4-3.1 prohibits lawyers from bringing a proceeding “unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.” This extends directly to slayer cases, where ethical lines can blur when emotional elements cloud legal strategy.

Defense attorneys facing slayer allegations must also balance zealous representation with truthful advocacy. Introducing false evidence, obstructing access to probative facts, or encouraging testimony that lacks integrity violates ethical norms.

Judges, bound by the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, must remain impartial and avoid the appearance of bias even in cases with high emotional charge. Given the irreversible consequences of a wrongful determination under the slayer statute, the ethical stakes extend to every actor in these proceedings.

• Probate courts must resist pressure to rush decisions based on moral outrage.
• Heirs and personal representatives need protection from retaliatory misuse of the statute.
• Attorneys must weigh the long-term consequences of slayer allegations on family dynamics and reputations.

Florida’s legal framework permits the disinheritance of those who intentionally cause a decedent’s death. But the ethics behind enforcing that rule demand a commitment to caution, fairness, and rigorous truth-seeking at every step of litigation.

Proactive Estate Planning to Eliminate Slayer Statute Conflicts

Structuring Wills and Trusts to Mitigate Risks

Drafting estate planning documents with precision will prevent unintended outcomes under Florida’s Slayer Statute. By anticipating future disputes, a testator can minimize the risk of a disqualified heir attempting to benefit from an estate. Use irrevocable trusts strategically: once established and funded, their terms are less vulnerable to manipulation. Include oversight mechanisms—appointing independent trustees, for instance—to monitor compliance and protect against coercive behaviors.

Using Conditional Bequests and Alternate Beneficiaries

Include clear conditional clauses. For example, language that disinherits a beneficiary involved in the unlawful death of the decedent—regardless of criminal conviction—sets expectations and supports disqualification through civil standard proceedings. Complement this approach by naming one or more alternate beneficiaries for each bequest. If the primary recipient is removed under Florida Statute §732.802, the alternate automatically replaces them without need for court intervention.

• Sample clause: “If [Beneficiary] shall predecease me or fail to survive me by 30 days, or is determined by a court to have caused or contributed to my death, I direct that this share shall pass to [Alternate].”
• Contingent devises: Allocate assets to charities or unrelated third parties if all named heirs are disqualified under slayer provisions.
• Trust protectors: Authorize a designated third party to amend trust distributions if slayer-related issues arise.

Advance Directives and Elder Abuse Protections

Slayer cases do not always involve overt violence. Psychological or financial abuse by caregivers can escalate. Advance directives like powers of attorney and health care surrogate designations help ensure that only trusted individuals manage the principal’s affairs—especially in vulnerable moments. When drafting these documents, avoid blanket authority. Clarify limits on gift-giving and require the oversight of co-agents or public guardians in high-risk situations.

Incorporating elder abuse protection clauses in wills and trusts adds a second layer of defense. These provisions can authorize fiduciaries to delay distribution to a beneficiary suspected of abuse pending investigation, thereby supporting the court’s application of the Slayer Statute if necessary.

Looking Ahead

Think forward. Who would contest the terms? Who might benefit from your premature demise? Estate planning with these questions in mind will reduce ambiguity and keep assets out of the hands of those who should never inherit them.

Intersecting Abuse and Inheritance: Elder and Domestic Violence in Florida Slayer Statute Cases

Recognizing the Overlap Between Domestic Homicide and Inheritance Disputes

Cases involving the Florida Slayer Statute frequently reveal a troubling intersection between violent relationships and financial motives. In probate proceedings, homicides committed within families—particularly those involving elderly victims—often originate from long-standing patterns of domestic abuse or escalating elder mistreatment.

Data from the Florida Department of Children and Families shows that elder abuse is significantly underreported, with less than 1 in 14 cases ever reaching authorities. When such abuse escalates into homicide, the probate process must assess whether the slayer statute disqualifies the perpetrator from receiving any portion of the decedent’s estate. The legal challenge lies in disentangling the emotional dynamics of familial relationships from the statutory requirement that a person who “unlawfully and intentionally kills” another is barred from benefiting under the deceased’s will or through intestate succession.

In domestic settings, financial control often coexists with psychological and physical abuse, paving the way for violent outcomes that later masquerade as natural deaths. Probate courts, therefore, must evaluate not just cause of death but the social context surrounding it. Did the heir dominate the victim financially? Were reports of abuse made to authorities? These questions can shift a case from contested inheritance to a clear application of §732.802.

Special Treatment and Sensitivity in Investigating Elder-Related Killings

Elder homicides require a distinct investigative posture. Unlike other slayer statute scenarios, these deaths may at first appear natural due to age-related health conditions. Forensic investigators, probate attorneys, and medical examiners must align efforts to detect subtle indicators of foul play—such as unusual changes in estate plans, rapid deterioration in care, or alterations to power of attorney shortly before death.

Florida courts sometimes rely on multidisciplinary elder abuse fatality review teams, established under Florida Statutes §415.1103, to analyze systemic failures in these cases. Such teams help probate courts understand how financial exploitation may evolve into lethal violence and can point to pre-death behaviors that support disqualification of the killer under the slayer rule.

Prevention Through Interventions and Protective Services

Preventive intervention can cut off the trajectory from abuse to homicide. Adult Protective Services (APS) in Florida screens over 180,000 reports of elder abuse annually, with financial exploitation comprising the majority. When APS intervenes—whether by appointing a guardian, reporting to law enforcement, or providing in-home services—it reduces the risk of murder motivated by inheritance pressures.

In probate matters, evidence of past APS involvement often becomes significant. If protective services deemed the alleged slayer a danger prior to the decedent’s death, such findings bolster a court’s decision to apply the slayer statute. Moreover, proactive professionals—attorneys, financial advisors, and healthcare providers—can play a pivotal role in flagging concerning patterns before violence occurs.

• APS case files can provide compelling documentation in slayer statute proceedings.
• Risk assessments conducted by geriatric care managers may forecast future harm.
• Medical records showing bruises, signs of restraint, or recurring injuries help corroborate abuse claims.

By connecting probate law with elder protection strategies, Florida’s application of the slayer statute can not only prevent unjust enrichment but also spotlight a deeper web of abuse that might otherwise remain hidden beneath layers of grief and inheritance paperwork.

Florida’s Slayer Statute in Probate: Final Observations and Legal Direction

Reflecting on Florida’s Approach to Justice in Probate

Florida’s slayer statute, encoded in Florida Statute §732.802, frames a clear legal boundary: no individual who unlawfully and intentionally kills another should benefit from the estate of the person they killed. This principle serves to uphold both public policy and the integrity of the probate system.

Whether the estate involves a formal will or is distributed under intestate succession, courts in Florida consistently use this statute to disinherit individuals who meet the disqualification criteria. Probate administrations involving slayer issues introduce complex legal and evidentiary standards, especially when navigating both criminal and civil court determinations.

Probate Disputes Demand an Experienced Legal Perspective

Confronting a probate dispute rooted in allegations of wrongdoing, particularly under the slayer statute, requires immediate legal intervention. An experienced Florida probate attorney will evaluate existing evidence, advise on the admissibility of criminal verdicts—or the lack thereof—and move swiftly through the probate procedures. The right legal counsel ensures that claims and defenses are properly preserved, and that assets are reallocated in accordance with Florida law.

Have you reviewed your own estate plan for contingencies like this? Avoiding future complications starts with proactive planning. For fiduciaries, especially personal representatives, knowing how to respond when a slayer issue arises makes the difference between a seamless estate process and years of litigation.

Fairness As a Legal Standard, Not Just a Moral One

The slayer statute sits at the intersection of ethics and law. It doesn’t just remove incentives for violence; it reinforces the principle that justice includes disqualifying wrongdoers from financial gain within the probate system. Florida probate courts apply this measure not out of sentiment, but out of legal obligation to fairness, finality, and public policy.

Frequently Asked Questions About Florida’s Slayer Statute

Is a murder conviction required to apply the slayer statute?

No.  A murder conviction is not required.

In Pacific Life v. Perez, the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, ruled that in the absence of a conviction of murder in any degree, the court may determine by the greater weight of the evidence whether the killing was unlawful and intentional.

In this case, Pacific Life Insurance Company filed an interpleader action regarding a life insurance policy they issued to Decedent Joaquin Perez.  The policy identified Decedent’s son and daughter as the primary beneficiaries, with each receiving 50% of the share of the $250,000 death benefit.  Pacific Life paid Decedent’s daughter Cristina’s share.  The remaining 50% was the subject of the dispute.

Decedent was shot to death.  Decedent’s son, Matthew, was charged with first-degree murder.

Cristina filed a crossclaim against Matthew in the interpleader action asserting a claim to the death benefit allocated to him.  She claimed that Matthew unlawfully and intentionally killed decedent and therefore was not entitled to the remaining 50% of the death benefit.  The Policy provides that, if the beneficiary predeceased the insured, the amount payable will be the entire death benefits to the surviving single beneficiary.

Cristina obtained a clerk’s default and moved for a default final judgment against Matthew  premised on Matthew’s default and failure to file any claim to the death benefits.  The Court denied the motion without prejudice because the record was insufficient to establish Cristina’s entitlement to the death benefits under the Florida Slayer Statute.  Cristina renewed her motion for default judgment.

In support of the renewed motion Cristina filed a declaration and a copy of the probable cause affidavit and appearance form.  The evidence reflected the following:

Matthew admitted to shooting and killing his father, the Decedent, with a shotgun because he felt unsafe that his father was “changing the locks.” Matthew also stated that he was upset that his father had woken him up that day, and he told his father that he was a felon because he was “threatening him” and that he needed to die. Matthew clearly stated to the arresting officer that he intentionally killed his father Moreover, the arresting officer noted in the Affidavit that Matthew did not mention that his father threatened him, provoked him, was violent, or did anything else to justify Matthew’s actions.

An Unlawful and Intentional Killing Triggers the Florida Slayer Statute – No Murder Conviction Necessary

A murder conviction is not required to trigger the application of the Florida Slayer Statute:

The Court concludes that the evidence establishes Matthew unlawfully and intentionally killed his father. Notably, it is of no import that Matthew was ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity because the Slayer Statute provides that “[i]n the absence of a conviction of murder in any degree, the court may determine by the greater weight of the evidence whether the killing was unlawful and intentional.” Fla. Stat. § 732.802(5).

Also, for purposes of the Slayer Statute, the killing can be considered intentional and unlawful despite a finding of criminal insanity. See Congleton v. Sansom, 664 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Notably, in Congleton, a husband strangled his wife to death. He was charged with murder but was adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity, never having gone to trial. The Slayer Statute was still applicable in the probate proceeding, even though the husband was never criminally convicted. Notably, the Court underscores that Matthew’s default in this action serves as his admission of the cross claim’s well-pled allegations, which include that he intentionally and unlawfully killed the Decedent.

Cristina was considered the single surviving beneficiary pursuant to the Florida Slayer Statute and the language of the insurance policy.

Is the Slayer Statute Preempted by Erisa?

No, a state slayer statute is not preempted by ERISA, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

What is ERISA and Why Does ERISA Matter?

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), is a comprehensive set of federal laws that governs employee benefits.  Most retirement plans and health insurance plans are governed by ERISA, and for large employers, virtually all tax deferred retirement plans and health insurance plans are covered.  ERISA preempts all state laws that purport to govern a covered employee benefit plan.  Whatever state law says, it will normally be disregarded with respect to any area governed by ERISA. In the areas of death and divorce, ERISA’s preemption can sometimes work injustice.

The Supreme Court weighed in on ERISA preemption in the case of Egelhoff v. Egelhoff (2001).  Many states have in their divorce law a provision that a divorce revokes any portion of a will or nonprobate device that would transfer assets to a former spouse upon death – the obvious reason being that people do not timely, if ever, update their wills or nonprobate designations to remove a former spouse.  In Egelhoff, the decedent had a life insurance policy at his place of employment governed by ERISA.  The decedent and his wife divorced, and the decedent died two months later, without having updated his life insurance beneficiary designation to remove his former spouse.

The Supreme Court in Egelhoff held that when the instrument of transfer is a beneficiary designation in a pension plan or life insurance policy subject to federal regulation under ERISA, the otherwise applicable state divorce revocation statute is preempted, even though ERISA makes no mention of divorce revocation. The Court reasoned that enforcing the state divorce revocation statute would “interfere with nationally uniform plan administration.”

Because the result in Egelhoff allowed supposed plan-level administrative convenience to defeat the principled objective of the divorce revocation statutes, a number of courts reacted by allowing so-called post-distribution relief, in some cases pursuant to a state statute so providing. Obeying Egelhoff, these courts preempted the state divorce revocation law at the plan level, thereby permitting the ex-spouse to receive the designated benefit from the plan, but allowing the person(s) entitled under the divorce revocation statute to recover those proceeds from the ex-spouse in a subsequent state-court action based on unjust enrichment. In a 2013 decision, Hillman v. Maretta, involving an insurance policy purchased under a program for federal employees, the Supreme Court extended preemption to forbid such post-distribution relief.

Yale law professor John Langbein has written the seminal article on Egelhoff and Hillman, in Destructive Federal Preemption of State Wealth Law In Beneficiary Designation Cases: Hillman Doubles Down on Egelhoff, Vanderbilt Law Review (2014).

ERISA Preemption Does Not Apply to Slayer Statute

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Miscevic, 880 F.3d 927 (7th Cir. 2018), held that the Illinois slayer statute is not preempted by ERISA.

In this case, a wife killed her husband. The husband was a participant in a union pension plan that provided survivor benefits to a surviving spouse or, if there were no surviving spouse, to a minor child.  The wife was found not guilty of killing her husband by reason of insanity. Her husband’s pension fund, brought an interpleader action to determine the proper beneficiary of the husband’s pension benefits because the couple had a minor child.

The wife claimed she was entitled to a surviving spouse pension. The child, through a guardian, claimed the wife was barred from recovering from the Fund by the Illinois slayer statute. The Illinois slayer statute provides that murderers are treated as having predeceased their victims so they cannot receive benefits as a result of their crime. The Seventh Circuit held the Illinois slayer statute not to be preempted by ERISA.

[The Egelhoff] Court concluded that the Washington statute “directly conflict[ed] with ERISA’s requirements that plans be administered, and benefits be paid, in accordance with plan documents,” and therefore, “impose[d] ‘precisely the burden that ERISA preemption was intended to avoid.'” Id. at 150 (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co., Inc. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 10, 107 S. Ct. 2211, 96 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987)).

[The wife] argues that the Court’s opinion in Egelhoff “compels a conclusion that [the Illinois slayer statute] is preempted.” She maintains that based on Egelhoff, “the only logical conclusion that may be drawn with respect to [the Illinois slayer statute] is that it is preempted pursuant to [ERISA] as a law that ‘relates to’ employee benefit plans.” We disagree.

Critically, the Court in Egelhoff commented that slayer statutes present a different question than the Washington statute at issue in that case. The Court acknowledged that, “[i]n the ERISA context, … ‘slayer’ statutes could revoke the beneficiary status of someone who murdered a plan participant.” Id. at 152. Nevertheless, the Court stressed “that the principle underlying the statutes—which have been adopted by nearly every State—is well established in the law and has a long historical pedigree predating ERISA.” Id. It opined that, “because the statutes are more or less uniform nationwide, their interference with the aims of ERISA is at least debatable.” Id. Eight years later, the Court again declined to address whether ERISA preempts state slayer laws. See Kennedy v. Plan Adm’r for DuPont Sav. & Inv. Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 304 n.14, 129 S. Ct. 865, 172 L. Ed. 2d 662 (2009).

Since Egelhoff, no federal court of appeals has faced the question of whether ERISA preempts state slayer statutes.

We agree with those [federal district courts] that have held that ERISA does not preempt slayer statutes. Slayer laws are an aspect of family law, a traditional area of state regulation. See Egelhoff, 532 U.S. at 152 (“[T]he principle underlying [slayer] statutes … is well established in the law.”); Manning v. Hayes, 212 F.3d 866, 872 (5th Cir. 2000) (noting that “the law of family relations,” including the “fairly uniform set of state laws” describing the slayer law principle, has “traditionally been a fairly sacrosanct enclave of state law”). Thus, to demonstrate preemption, [the wife] “bears ‘[a] considerable burden'” and must overcome the “starting presumption” that Congress did not intend to supplant this “traditional area of state regulation.” Biondi, 303 F.3d at 775 (quoting De Buono, 520 U.S. at 814); see also Egelhoff, 532 U.S. at 151 (“There is indeed a presumption against pre-emption in areas of traditional state regulation such as family law.”).

 

Does Florida’s Slayer Statute Bar A Killer’s Family From Inheriting?

No.  The Slayer’s family is not barred.

In Fiel v. Hoffman, (4th DCA 2015) the Florida appellate court decided that the Florida Slayer Statute and the Florida probate code statute regarding the effect of undue influence on the validity of a will mean what they say.

This  probate case involved the probate of Fontainebleau Miami Beach heir Ben Novack’s estate.  Ben’s wife, Narcy, was convicted of his murder.  Narcy was also responsible for the death of Ben’s mom.  Narcy had a daughter from a prior marriage, and the daughter had two sons.  The daughter and her sons were named as beneficiaries of Ben’s will if Ben’s mother and Narcy did not survive Ben.

Narcy sought probate of the will.  The Florida probate court determined that based upon Florida’s Slayer Statute, Narcy could not participate in the estate, and the court was required to treat Narcy as if she had predeceased Ben.  Ben’s cousins, Meredith and Lisa Fiel, filed a complaint to invalidate Ben’s will, as well as an October 2002 Will which devised the residue of Ben’s estate to Narcy, or to Ben’s mother if Narcy predeceased Ben.  The Fiels sought to enforce a June 2002 Will which left Ben’s estate to the Fiels if his mother predeceased him.

The Fiels argued that Narcy could benefit from the estate indirectly by her daughter and grandchildren inheriting.  The Florida probate court dismissed this claim, determining that the Slayer Statute did not prohibit the children of the murderer from inheriting, ruling:

Section 732.802 is clear and unambiguous and does not extend the prohibition of receipt of property or other benefits to anyone other than the killer of the decedent. It is not for the Court to legislate new laws or amendments to existing laws that are clear and unambiguous, that is exclusively a legislative process.

The Florida appellate court agreed with the Florida probate court, ruling that the “statute is clear and unambiguous and disinherits only the slayer, or anyone who participates in the killing of the decedent, from any rights to the victim’s estate.”  While other states have slayer statutes that can be read to bar the children of the slayer from inheriting, Florida’s statute cannot be so construed.

The Florida appellate court continued by stating:

The statute is clear. To interpret the statute to preclude the stepchildren from recovering would require us to add words to the statute, something we cannot do. If the Legislature deems as a public policy matter that anyone inheriting through the slayer should be barred from receiving any share of a victim’s estate, it can amend the statute to accomplish that result.

The Fiels alleged that Narcy unduly influenced Ben to execute the wills, using physical violence and threatening Ben with public embarrassment.  The Florida probate court dismissed the undue influence claim, determining that the complaint did not allege that the daughter and grandsons participated in any way in the undue influence, so the devises to them remained valid.

The Florida appellate court disagreed with the Florida probate court, finding that the complaint stated a cause of action under the statute, stating:

The general rule [that the portion of the will not procured by undue influence remains valid] as stated above is subject to the limitation that it is not applicable when it will defeat the manifest intent of the testator, interfere with the general scheme of distribution, or work an injustice to other heirs. The doctrine is not applicable where it is impossible to determine to what extent the specific legacies have been tainted by the undue influence; in such a situation the whole will must either be refused probate or admitted thereto. Moreover, the rule which permits the probate of part of a will notwithstanding other parts are declared invalid as affected by undue influence does not mean that a legatee may sustain his bequest on the ground that he did not participate in bringing undue influence to bear on the testator, where it appears that the entire instrument was the result of undue influence.

The Fiels alleged that Narcy used undue influence to get Ben to sign the wills that completely altered Ben’s estate plan, and that the contested wills were “entirely tainted” due to the undue influence by Narcy, including the provisions for Narcy’s daughter and grandchildren.  The Fiels further alleged that Narcy’s actions were undertaken not only to benefit herself but also her family.

These allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss as to the undue influence claim.

The takeaway is that Florida’s slayer statute and undue influence statute are strictly construed by Florida courts.

Can the Slayer Statute Apply in Federal Interpleader Action?

Yes, the slayer statute applies in Federal court.

In Stephenson v Prudential, (MD Fla. 2016), the deceased, Mr. Rigby, owned a life insurance policy naming his domestic partner, Mr. McGriff, as beneficiary.  As a result of a physical altercation between Rigby and McGriff, Rigby died.   This left everyone fighting about who was entitled to Rigby’s life insurance proceeds.

McGriff filed a claim with Prudential for the life insurance death benefit.  Rigby’s estate also made a claim for the death benefit.  Prudential Insurance Company then filed an interpleader action in federal court in Florida.

As explained by the Court:

Interpleader is appropriate where the stakeholder may be subject to adverse claims that could expose it to multiple liability on the same fund. In an interpleader action, the burden is on the party seeking interpleader to demonstrate that he is entitled to it, or more specifically, that he has been or may be subjected to adverse claims.  When the court decides that interpleader is available, it may issue an order discharging the stakeholder, if the stakeholder is disinterested.
Interpleader is the means by which an innocent stakeholder, who typically claims no interest in an asset and does not know the asset’s rightful owner, avoids multiple liability by asking the court to determine the asset’s rightful owner. [An] Interpleader action proceeds in two stages. At the first stage, the court determines whether interpleader is proper and whether to discharge the stakeholder from further liability to the claimants. At the second stage, the court evaluates the respective rights of the claimants to the interpleaded funds.

The Court granted the interpleader action and dismissed Prudential out of the case except for the issue of its entitlement to attorney fees.

A Lower Standard Of Proof For Florida’s Slayer Statute vs. Criminal Prosecution

Florida’s slayer statute is found at § 732.802(3) and provides:

“A named beneficiary of a . . . life insurance policy . . . who unlawfully and intentionally kills . . . the person upon whose life the policy is issued is not entitled to any benefit under the . . . policy . . .; and it becomes payable as though the killer had predeceased the decedent.”

McGriff argued that, because he was not prosecuted for the death of Rigby, and thus there was no murder conviction, the slayer statute could not be applied against him.  In rejecting this argument, the Court held that prosecution and a murder conviction was not required for application of Florida’s slayer statute as follows:

To begin with, the fact that the State Attorney declined to prosecute McGriff for Rigby’s death does not resolve the issue of whether McGriff is precluded from collecting the life insurance proceeds under Florida Statute § 732.802. The State Attorney would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt McGriff’s guilt in unlawfully causing Rigby’s death.  Conversely, Florida Statute § 732.802 precludes McGriff from collecting the life insurance proceeds if this Court determines by the greater weight of the evidence that McGriff’s killing of Rigby was unlawful and intentional. Thus, the standard of proof is much lower to preclude McGriff from collecting the life insurance proceeds. As such, the fact that the State Attorney declined to prosecute McGriff for Rigby’s death has no bearing on the application of Florida Statute § 732.802. See Fla. Stat. § 732.802(5)(stating that “[i]n the absence of a conviction of murder in any degree, the court may determine by the greater weight of the evidence whether the killing was unlawful and intentional for purposes of” § 732.802).

Want to learn more? Visit Florida Probate Lawyer today! Or if you’re looking for a guide, visit Florida Surviving Spouse Rights!