## Facts

- Howard Mahoney died intestate on May 6, 1961, from gunshot wounds.
- His survivors were his wife, Charlotte Mahoney, and his parents; he left no issue.
- Charlotte was convicted by jury of manslaughter in connection with Howard’s death and was incarcerated.
- Mark Mahoney, Howard’s father, was appointed administrator of the estate, valued at about $3,885.89.
- Vermont’s intestacy statute provided that, where a decedent leaves a surviving spouse and no issue and the estate is under $8,000, the spouse takes the entire estate.
- Vermont had no statute expressly barring inheritance by a person who killed the decedent.

## Issues

1. Whether a surviving spouse convicted of manslaughter in connection with the decedent’s death may inherit under Vermont’s intestacy statute in the absence of a slayer statute.
2. Whether the probate court may distribute the estate directly to the decedent’s parents by treating the spouse as disqualified.
3. Whether, and in what forum, equity may prevent the spouse from benefiting from the killing through a constructive trust.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Vermont reversed the probate decree and remanded.
- The court held that legal title to the intestate estate passes according to the statute, even to a slayer.
- The probate court erred by decreeing the residue directly to the parents and not decreeing it to the widow in accordance with the intestacy statute.
- Any constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment must be sought in a court of chancery; the probate court lacked jurisdiction to impose that equitable remedy.
- On remand, the estate was to be decreed to the widow under the intestacy statute, leaving interested parties to pursue equitable relief in chancery.

## Legal Principles

- In the absence of a statutory bar, statutes of descent and distribution govern the passage of legal title, and probate courts must follow those statutes.
- A person should not profit from a wrongful killing; equity may respond by imposing a constructive trust on property received as a result of the wrong.
- The constructive-trust approach permits legal title to pass to the slayer while treating the slayer as a constructive trustee for those who would otherwise take.
- Probate courts have limited statutory jurisdiction over distribution; equitable remedies such as constructive trusts must be imposed by a chancery (equity) court.
- A criminal conviction related to the death is relevant but does not automatically resolve the equitable predicates; chancery may require proof that the killing warrants constructive-trust relief.

## Conclusion

The court required probate distribution to follow the intestacy statute by decreeing legal title to the widow, while preserving the ability of other heirs to seek a constructive trust in chancery to prevent the widow from retaining the estate if equity finds she should not benefit from the killing.


In re Estate of Mahoney, 126 Vt. 31, 220 A.2d 475 (Vt. 1966)