Also known as: feloniously
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Latin phrase describing conduct undertaken with criminal intent. The phrase identifies an act performed with the purpose of committing a felony, thereby triggering civil consequences such as forfeiture of benefits under slayer statutes.
Carla slipped poison into Victor's drink at a celebratory dinner after he changed his will to leave her rental properties. A probate court later found by a preponderance of the evidence that Carla acted with criminal intent to obtain the properties. Because the killing was done per feloniam, Carla forfeited her devise and the properties passed to Victor's son as if she had predeceased him.
Carla was convicted in criminal court of intentionally killing her husband Ethan by causing his car to explode. The probate court treated the conviction as conclusive proof of criminal intent. Carla therefore forfeited both her share of Ethan's estate and the life insurance proceeds under the slayer rule.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cameron remotely disabled the garage door safety sensors moments before Julia became trapped and died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Although Cameron claimed the act was a prank, the civil court weighed the evidence of deliberate interference and found criminal intent. Cameron forfeited her interest in Julia's will.
Ursula pushed Dawn during a heated argument over business decisions, causing Dawn to strike her head and later die. Security footage and the medical examiner's report were presented in probate court. The court determined the push reflected criminal intent rather than lawful self-defense, so Ursula forfeited his inheritance.
Mark laced Dana's drink with toxin at a retirement dinner after a promotion dispute. In a civil proceeding the children presented circumstantial evidence of motive and access. The probate court found by a preponderance that Mark acted with criminal intent and barred him from the retirement benefits.
Stephanie directed crews to work without guardrails despite repeated warnings, resulting in Roland's fatal fall. A manslaughter conviction followed. In the civil action over life insurance proceeds the court examined whether the conviction established the required criminal intent for slayer disqualification.
A final criminal conviction for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent conclusively establishes slayer status in a later civil proceeding. The probate court need not relitigate the facts. Even without a conviction, however, the court may still find slayer status by a preponderance of the evidence in the probate action.
The probate court applies the civil preponderance standard to decide whether the beneficiary feloniously and intentionally killed the decedent. A criminal conviction is not required. The court may weigh forensic reports, witness testimony, and other evidence independently of any criminal proceeding.
An acquittal does not preclude a civil determination. The criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is higher than the civil preponderance standard. The probate court may still find that the beneficiary acted with criminal intent and bar inheritance even after an acquittal.
Yes. The rule bars a slayer from receiving any benefit that depends on the decedent's death, including life insurance proceeds and retirement plan death benefits. The same criminal-intent finding that disqualifies a beneficiary under a will also disqualifies the beneficiary from nonprobate transfers.
…larceny when the property taken exceeds $20 in value. Id. § 1704. Embezzlement is punishable “in the manner prescribed for feloniously stealing property of the value of that embezzled.” Id. § 1462. Hence, he who embezzles property worth more than $20 is guilty of a felony. A clerk who appropriates over $20 from his…