## Facts

- Jeanette Swanson shot and killed two of her minor children.
- Jeanette suffered from serious mental disorders and believed someone was trying to harm the children.
- Jeanette stated she killed the children to send them to heaven to protect them.
- In a criminal case, Jeanette pled guilty to two counts of deliberate homicide.
- The children’s father, Gene Swanson, served as personal representative of the children’s estates.
- Gene petitioned the probate court to bar Jeanette from taking from the estates under Montana’s slayer statute, which disqualifies a person who “feloniously and intentionally” kills the decedent.
- Gene moved for summary judgment, arguing Jeanette’s guilty plea and resulting conviction established the slayer-statute requirements as a matter of law.
- The district court granted summary judgment and ruled Jeanette forfeited her right to inherit.
- Jeanette appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Jeanette’s guilty plea and conviction for deliberate homicide collaterally estopped her, in the probate proceeding, from contesting whether she “feloniously and intentionally” killed the children under Montana’s slayer statute.
2. Whether Montana’s slayer statute treats a criminal conviction (including one based on a guilty plea) as conclusive proof of the statute’s “feloniously and intentionally” requirement.
3. Whether the evidence of Jeanette’s mental illness created a genuine dispute about intent that made summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held Jeanette’s guilty plea did not, by itself, conclusively establish for slayer-statute purposes that she “feloniously and intentionally” killed the children.
- The court declined to apply collateral estoppel based solely on the guilty plea, because the probate issue required an independent determination and the plea did not show the issue was actually litigated in a way that justified preclusion.
- The court held that evidence concerning Jeanette’s mental condition raised a factual question on the slayer statute’s intent requirement, so the case could not be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) requires, among other things, that the identical issue was previously decided, the prior judgment was final, the party against whom preclusion is asserted was a party or in privity, and the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.
- A criminal conviction based on a guilty plea does not necessarily establish that a specific issue was actually litigated for purposes of issue preclusion in later civil proceedings.
- Montana’s slayer statute bars inheritance only if the killing was “felonious and intentional,” and the probate court must determine whether that standard is met in the estate proceeding.
- A criminal conviction may be strong evidence in probate, but it is not automatically conclusive of the slayer-statute elements when the statute requires a specific finding and the record raises questions about mental state.
- Summary judgment is improper when the record shows a real dispute of material fact, including disputes about intent informed by evidence of severe mental illness.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment forfeiting Jeanette Swanson’s inheritance rights because her guilty plea to deliberate homicide did not automatically satisfy the slayer statute’s requirement that the killings be “felonious and intentional”; the probate court had to decide that question based on the evidence, and the record raised a triable dispute regarding intent.


In the Matter of the Swansons' Estate, 187 P.3d 631 (2008)