Florida Slayer Statute Does Not Disinherit Descendents Of A Murderer But Undue Influence Might

Narcy Novack was convicted of the murder of her husband Ben, as well as his mother, to ensure her daughter from a previous marriage would inherit instead of two cousins of Ben. However, the cousins challenged the will in court arguing that the slayer statute prevented Narcy’s family from inheriting since it would indirectly benefit Narcy and, in addition, that she exercised under influence over him to change his will. The trial court rejected both of these arguments and the case was appealed.

In Fiel v. Hoffman, the court of appeals held that the plain language of the statute only caused the murderer to be considered predeceased and did not affect the ability of a family member of the murderer from inheriting. The fact that the beneficiary is a descendent of the murderer without a blood relationship to the victim does alter the analysis as was claimed by the plaintiffs. However, the court held that the trial court improperly dismissed the undue influence claim and remanded the case for a determination if Novack was coerced into changing his will by Narcy.

Special thanks to Professor Naomi Cahn for bringing this case to my attention.