## Facts

- Adolfo F. Suarez was shot and killed at his home; the death was ruled a homicide.
- Suarez had two life-insurance policies; his mother, Dora Castro, was the original beneficiary on both.
- Suarez later submitted beneficiary-change forms naming his wife, Luz Ballesteros-Suarez, as beneficiary.
- The insurers filed interpleader actions and deposited the proceeds with the court due to competing claims and uncertainty about the proper payee.
- Dora Castro died during the litigation, and her daughter, Cruz Antonia Suarez Castro, was substituted as personal representative of Dora’s estate.
- In discovery and at a bench trial, Luz denied involvement but invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions about the homicide; her adult son likewise invoked the privilege when called to testify.
- Evidence presented included detective testimony describing circumstantial evidence implicating Luz, testimony that Luz offered to pay Castro to help her obtain the proceeds, and forensic document examination indicating Suarez did not sign one beneficiary-change form; the court found that form forged.
- The trial court found Luz criminally accountable for Suarez’s felonious and intentional killing and awarded all proceeds to Dora’s estate, rejecting Luz’s claim to any community property share.

## Issues

1. Whether Arizona’s slayer statute permits a civil court to bar a beneficiary from life-insurance proceeds without a criminal conviction, based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. Whether the court may rely on circumstantial evidence and draw an adverse inference from a party’s Fifth Amendment invocation in determining slayer-statute disqualification.
3. Whether a disqualified spouse may still recover a community property share of life-insurance proceeds when premiums were paid with community funds.
4. Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding a beneficiary-change form forged and therefore ineffective.

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment awarding all insurance proceeds to Dora’s estate.
- The slayer statute applied without a criminal conviction; the civil standard was preponderance of the evidence.
- The trial court properly considered circumstantial evidence and permissibly drew an adverse inference from Luz’s refusal to testify on self-incrimination grounds.
- The slayer statute barred Luz from receiving any proceeds, including any share asserted under community property principles.
- The finding that the American Family beneficiary-change form was forged was supported by the evidence and was not clearly erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- A.R.S. § 14-2803 bars a person who feloniously and intentionally kills (or is criminally accountable for killing) the decedent from receiving property or benefits flowing from the death, including life-insurance proceeds.
- Application of the slayer statute does not require a prior criminal conviction; the relevant finding may be made in a civil proceeding under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
- In civil cases, a court may draw an adverse inference from a party’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment when evaluating disputed factual issues.
- The slayer statute’s bar extends to prevent recovery through alternative theories (including community property claims) that would otherwise allow the killer to benefit from the death.
- A forged beneficiary-change designation is ineffective; absent a valid change, the prior beneficiary designation controls.

## Conclusion

The court held that a civil finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a spouse was criminally accountable for the insured’s felonious and intentional killing disqualifies the spouse from all life-insurance proceeds under Arizona’s slayer statute, permits adverse inferences from Fifth Amendment silence, and eliminates any claimed community property share, while also enforcing the invalidity of a forged beneficiary-change form.


Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez, 213 P.3d 197 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009)