Adolfo Suarez’s stepson took him out for a night of drinking in November, 2004, and took him back home afterward. Later that same night, someone entered Mr. Suarez’s home and shot him and another resident to death. Police almost immediately suspected Mr. Suarez’s wife, Luz Ballesteros-Suarez, and her son Miguel Carrasco, but no criminal charges were filed. Then Ms. Ballesteros-Suarez asked two life insurance companies to pay her as the named beneficiary.

Mr. Suarez’s mother objected, arguing that Arizona’s version of the “slayer statute” precludes a killer from profiting from their wrong. A trial ensued, at which the central question was whether Ms. Ballesteros-Suarez had “intentionally and feloniously” caused her husband’s death, as required by the slayer statute.

Ms. Ballesteros-Suarez and her son both declined to testify at the trial, claiming their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. All very well, ruled the trial judge, but that allowed an inference that if she had testified she would have acknowledged what she was being accused of doing.

Before ever getting to the slayer statute, the trial judge first found that one of the two insurance beneficiary designations was a forgery. Mr. Suarez had not named his wife as beneficiary after all, and that policy still named his mother.

Then the judge ruled on the slayer statute. Not surprisingly, the finding was that Ms. Ballesteros-Suarez had indeed “feloniously and intentionally” killed her husband, and so she (along with her son) was treated as having predeceased Mr. Suarez. His life insurance would go to his mother’s estate (she, sadly, had died in the meantime).

But wait. Arizona is a community property state, which means that all property acquired during the period of the marriage is presumed to be equally owned by the two spouses. Because Mr. Saurez’s policies were both term life insurance, and the last premium payment on each had been made while the couple was married, Ms. Ballesteros-Suarez argued that she already owned half of each policy. Prior Arizona case law seemed to support her argument, too.

Not so quick, said the Arizona Court of Appeals. The language from earlier decisions did not decide the question, but merely responded to stipulations agreed to by the parties in those cases. In the facts of this case, ruled the appellate judges, Arizona’s slayer statute goes further than to just change the beneficiary designations. It also removes any right the slayer might have to the policy proceeds under a community property theory, as well. Even with no prosecution, crime doesn’t pay. Estate of Solis v. Ballesteros-Suarez, June 18, 2009.

Would you like to subscribe to Elder Law Issues? Simply provide your e-mail address and name below, and click "Subscribe". At the same time, you may choose to also subscribe to The Voice, the newsletter of the Special Needs Alliance.

© 1993-2009 Fleming & Curti, P.L.C.
330 N. Granada Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701
520-622-0400 /  FAX: 520-203-0240