## Facts

- Ben H. Novack, Jr. was murdered in 2009; his wife, Narcy Novack, was later convicted of his murder and found responsible for the murder of his mother.
- Ben’s probated will provided that if his mother did not survive him, Narcy would inherit; if neither his mother nor Narcy survived him, Narcy’s daughter would receive $150,000 and the residue would be held in trust for Narcy’s two grandsons.
- In probate, the court applied Florida’s Slayer Statute to disqualify Narcy and treat her as having predeceased Ben, resulting in Narcy’s daughter and grandsons taking under the will’s contingent provisions.
- Ben’s cousins, Meredith and Lisa Fiel, sued to invalidate the probated will (and another later will) and to enforce an earlier 2002 will under which they would take if Ben’s mother predeceased him.
- The cousins alleged (i) the later will(s) were procured by Narcy’s undue influence, including physical violence and coercion, and (ii) the Slayer Statute should also bar Narcy’s daughter and grandsons because they were not Ben’s blood relatives and Narcy could indirectly benefit through them.
- The trial court dismissed the amended complaint, ruling the Slayer Statute did not disinherit Narcy’s daughter and grandsons and that undue influence, even if proven, would not invalidate devises to them.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s Slayer Statute, § 732.802, bars inheritance by the slayer’s children and grandchildren who did not participate in the killing.
2. Whether a complaint plausibly alleging that a will was entirely the product of a spouse’s undue influence states a claim to void the whole will, including contingent bequests to the spouse’s descendants.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the Slayer-Statute count.
- The appellate court reversed dismissal of the undue-influence count and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the Slayer Statute’s text disinherits only the killer (and participants) and does not permit disinheritance of innocent descendants.
- The court held the cousins sufficiently alleged that Narcy’s undue influence tainted the entire will and that severing only certain gifts could not be decided on a motion to dismiss.

## Legal Principles

- Florida’s Slayer Statute, § 732.802, bars “only the slayer or anyone who participates in the killing” from taking benefits under a will or the Probate Code and treats that person as having predeceased the decedent.
- Courts may not expand the Slayer Statute beyond its unambiguous text to disinherit innocent heirs of the slayer; any such expansion is for the legislature.
- A will may be invalidated in whole if the pleadings support that the entire instrument resulted from undue influence; partial invalidation applies only when undue influence is limited to specific provisions.
- At the pleading stage, allegations that an influencer acted to benefit both the influencer and close family can support a theory that bequests to family are inseparable from the undue influence.

## Conclusion

The court held that Florida’s Slayer Statute does not reach a murderer’s innocent descendants, even if they benefit under contingent will provisions, but it allowed an undue-influence challenge to proceed where the pleadings alleged the entire will was procured through the spouse’s coercion and could not be severed into valid and invalid parts.


Fiel v. Hoffman, 169 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)