## Facts

- Edgar Vassaur, Jr. conveyed commercial real property to himself and his wife, Betty E. Vassaur, as joint tenants by warranty deed dated June 30, 1969.
- On August 9, 1971, Betty shot and killed Edgar Jr. and was charged with first-degree murder.
- While under that charge, Betty deeded the property to her father, William M. Duncan, on September 30, 1971.
- Duncan claimed Betty took full title by survivorship and could convey full title to him.
- Edgar Vassaur, Sr., as administrator of Edgar Jr.’s estate, asserted the estate owned an undivided one-half interest and claimed lien rights tied to (i) mortgage payoff from credit life insurance proceeds and (ii) a home improvement loan repaid from estate assets.

## Issues

1. Whether a joint tenant’s intentional killing of the other severs the joint tenancy, converting it to a tenancy in common and preventing survivorship.
2. Whether Oklahoma’s slayer statute (Okla. Stat. tit. 84, § 231) bars a killer from taking the victim’s interest through joint tenancy survivorship.
3. How any asserted equitable adjustments or liens should be addressed after recognizing the estate’s interest.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the Court of Appeals’ opinion.
- The court reversed the trial court’s judgment on the pleadings for Duncan and remanded.
- The court held the unlawful killing was an act inconsistent with the continuation of joint tenancy and therefore severed it at the moment of the killing.
- The decedent’s one-half interest belonged to his estate/heirs, and the killer retained only her one-half as a tenant in common (transferable to her grantee), subject to further proceedings on asserted liens or equitable claims.

## Legal Principles

- A joint tenancy may be severed by conduct inconsistent with its continuation; intentional killing of a co-tenant is such conduct and severs the joint tenancy at the time of the killing.
- A wrongdoer may not obtain an increased property interest by reason of the wrong; survivorship will not be applied to allow a killer to acquire the victim’s share.
- Even where a slayer statute speaks in terms of succession, its policy may inform equitable treatment of nonprobate survivorship so the killer does not profit from the homicide.
- After severance, the parties (or their successors) hold as tenants in common, and courts may consider equitable adjustments, including lien-type claims, in subsequent proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a joint tenant who kills the other cannot take by survivorship because the killing severs the joint tenancy into a tenancy in common; the victim’s one-half passes to the estate, while the killer (and her transferee) holds only the remaining half, with lien and adjustment issues to be resolved on remand.


Duncan v. Vassaur, 550 P.2d 929 (Okla. 1976)