## Facts

- Margaret H. Benson had three children: Carol Lynn Benson Kendall, Steven W. Benson, and Scott R. Benson.
- Steven unlawfully and intentionally killed Margaret and Scott and was later convicted.
- Margaret died testate, leaving her property to her three children.
- Scott died intestate, unmarried, with no surviving spouse, descendants, or parents; absent disqualification, his heirs would have been his siblings (Kendall and Steven).
- Kendall petitioned to determine beneficiaries of (1) Margaret’s testate estate and (2) Scott’s intestate estate.
- The probate court ruled that Florida’s slayer statute disqualified Steven from inheriting from either estate, but allowed Steven’s minor children to take the share that would have passed to Steven.
- Kendall appealed, arguing public policy required disinheriting Steven’s children as well.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s slayer statute, or public policy, bars the murderer’s minor children from inheriting from the victims’ estates.
2. Whether Florida’s antilapse statute allows the murderer’s children to take the murderer’s devise under the victim’s will when the murderer is treated as having predeceased the testator.
3. Whether Florida’s intestacy statutes permit the murderer’s children to inherit per stirpes from the victim’s intestate estate when the murderer is treated as having predeceased the decedent.

## Decision

- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court’s judgments.
- Steven was disqualified from taking from both estates under Florida’s slayer statute and was treated as having predeceased each decedent.
- Steven’s minor children were not disqualified by the slayer statute and could inherit in Steven’s place.
- Under the antilapse statute, Steven’s children took Steven’s share under Margaret’s will per stirpes.
- Under the intestacy statutes, Steven’s children took the share that would have passed to Steven from Scott’s intestate estate per stirpes.

## Legal Principles

- Florida’s slayer statute disqualifies the unlawful and intentional killer from taking benefits under a will or the probate code and treats the killer as having predeceased the decedent.
- Absent statutory language to the contrary, the slayer statute does not disinherit the slayer’s descendants solely because they would take through the slayer.
- When a devisee who is a descendant of the testator is treated as having predeceased the testator, the antilapse statute can substitute the devisee’s descendants as takers per stirpes.
- In intestacy, when the slayer is treated as having predeceased the decedent, the slayer’s share may pass per stirpes to the slayer’s descendants under the collateral-kindred distribution rules.
- Courts will not expand statutory disinheritance to new categories of persons based on generalized public policy; such changes are for the legislature.

## Conclusion

The court held that the slayer statute barred only the killer, not the killer’s children, and that treating the killer as having predeceased the victims allowed the killer’s minor children to inherit per stirpes under Florida’s antilapse and intestacy provisions.


Kendall v. Starnes (In re Estate of Benson), 548 So. 2d 775 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1989)