Preview
William H. Holsinger, Esq. (SBN 084528)
Law Office of William H. Holsinger
1710 So. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 210A
San Mateo, CA 94402-2705 ELECTRONICALLY
Telephone: (650) 340-7500
Email: William@HolsingerLawOffice.com FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Attorney for Debra J. Dolch, Administrator with Will Annexed
04/05/2023
Clerk of the Court
BY: CARLOS MURILLO
Deputy Clerk
Superior Court of California
City and County of San Francisco
10
11 Estate of: ) Case No. PES-04-286107
12 Anne Shirley Outin, aka Anne S., Outin, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED
13 Deceased, ) PETITION TO CONFIRM FORFEITURE OF
14
) INTEREST IN ESTATE AND FOR COURT
DETERMINATION OF THE PERSONS
ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE
15 DECEDENT’S ESTATE (PROBATE CODE
16
(PROBATE CODE §§250, et. seq.11700)
17
Date: May 16, 2023
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 204 (Probate)
18
COMES NOW the petitioner, Debra J. Dolch, Administtrator with the Will Annexed for
19
the estate of Anne Shirley Outin, aka Anne S. Outin, deceased, and submits the following
20
memorandum of points and authorities in support of her amended petition to determine and
21
declare the forfeiture of Thomas Z. Hanley (“Hanley”), the son of the decedent, in the probate
22
estate of the decedent, and to determine the persons entitled to distribution of the decedent’s
23
estate, pursuant to Probate Code §§250, et seq., and 11700.
24
//1
25
11
26
OutinProbate\Pleadings/230404MPA 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED PETITION
TO CONFIRM FORFEITURE OF INTEREST IN ESTATE AND FOR COURT
DETERMINATION OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE
DECEDENT’S ESTATE (PROBATE CODE (PROBATE CODE §§250, et. seq.11700)
Determination of Persons Entitled to Distribution
Probate Code 11700 provides:
"At any time after letters are first issued to a general personal representative and
before an order for final distribution is made, the personal representative, or any person
claiming to be a beneficiary or otherwise entitled to distribution of a share of the
estate, may file a petition for a court determination of the persons entitled to distribution
of the decedent's estate. The petition shall include a statement of the basis for the
petitioner's claim."
Thomas Z. Hanley, the adopted son and only child of the decedent is the sole
10 beneficiary designated under the Will of the decedent, as well as under the related trust
11 agreement of the decedent, now the subject of a separate action in this Court (Case No. PTR-
12 18-302220). Hanley had no children. The decedent's sole heir at law, in the absence of an
13 interest by Hanley, was her mother, Mabel Cocking, a resident of England. She survived the
14 decedent, but has since died. Mabel Cocking left her own will, leaving her estate to the Royal
15 National Institute for the Blind and her other daughter, May Findlay, aka Mai Findlay, both also
16 in England. The appointment of a personal representative for the estate of Mabel Cocking is
17 pending.
18 Unworthy Heir/Slayer Statutes
19 The most widely accepted "unworthy heir" absolute exception to statutory and common
20 law inheritance rights involve extinguishing such rights through what are known as "slayer
21 statutes.” Since the 1800s, courts in the United States have flatly refused to permit murderers
22 to benefit from their crimes by inheriting, either under a will or through intestate succession
23 statutes, from people that they feloniously killed. Slayer statutes began to codify the common
24 law maxim ex turpis causa non actio (no action can arise from an illegal act), originally used in
25 England to deal with the problem of murderous heirs.
26
OutinProbate\Pleadings/230404MPA 2;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED PETITION
TO CONFIRM FORFEITURE OF INTEREST IN ESTATE AND FOR COURT
DETERMINATION OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE
DECEDENT’S ESTATE (PROBATE CODE (PROBATE CODE §§250, et. seq.11700)
This maxim first became American common law when it was adopted by the United
States Supreme Court in the case of New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong
(1886) 117 U.S. 591, when the Court held that "[i]t would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of
the country if one could recover insurance money payable on the death of a party whose life
he had feloniously taken.” Eventually, this rule was adopted by state courts, beginning in 1889
in the New York case of Riggs v. Palmer (N.Y. 1889) 22 N.E. 188, with these resounding
words:
“No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his
own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his
10 own crime. These maxims are dictated by public policy, have their foundation in
11 universal law administered in all civilized countries, and have nowhere been
12 superseded by statutes.”
13 Most states have adopted “slayer statutes” that codify this principle. See e.g., California
14 Probate Code §250. Both the Uniform Probate Code’ and statutes adopted by various states
15 seek to “plug” any loopholes that might be found. Recognizing, for example, that not all killers
16 are convicted, California adopted Probate Code §254, to distinguish, and set up a two-tier
17 system for determining the application of §250 between those convicted of murder and others
18 “€a) A final judgment of conviction of felonious and intentional killing is
19 conclusive for purposes of this part.
20
21
22
‘ For example, §2-803(b) of the Martindale-Hubbell Uniform and Model Acts 1999 provides
23 that “[a]n individual who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent forfeits all benefits
under this Article with respect to the decedent's estate, including an
24 intestate share, an elective share, an omitted spouse's or child's share, a
homestead allowance, exempt property, and a family allowance. If the decedent
25 died intestate, the decedent's intestate estate passes as if the killer disclaimed his
[or her] intestate share.” See also, California Probate Code §§251-253.
26
OutinProbate\Pleadings/230404MPA 3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED PETITION
TO CONFIRM FORFEITURE OF INTEREST IN ESTATE AND FOR COURT
DETERMINATION OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE
DECEDENT’S ESTATE (PROBATE CODE (PROBATE CODE §§250, et. seq.11700)
(b) In the absence of a final judgment of conviction of felonious and
intentional killing, the court may determine by a preponderance of evidence whether the
killing was felonious and intentional for purposes of this part. The burden of proof is on
the party seeking to establish that the killing was felonious and intentional for the
purposes of this part.”
This principle is so well-established that there is a dearth of litigation and appellate decisions
on this issue.
The instant situation fits squarely within this framework. Thomas Z. Hanley, the
adopted son of Anne Shirley Outin, was convicted of second-degree murder for her death.
10 This conviction, or judgment, is final.
a In order to pass the decedent's estate to the next in line, which are the British
12 beneficiaries of the decedent’s mother’s will, this determination of forfeiture, as well as a
13 determination of the next in line to inherit the decedent's estate, are necessary at some point.
14 Making this ruling now, will support the efforts in England to (re)open the estate of Mabel
15 Cocking, so that a judicially appointed personal representative of Ms. Cocking’s estate is
16 identified to receive the trust assets.
17 Dated: April aves 2023
18 Law Office of William H. Holsinger
19 ZL a
20 a
By.
~-Kttorney for Debra J. Dolch
21 Successor Trust
22
23
24
25
26
OutinProbate\Pleadings/230404MPA 4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED PETITION
TO CONFIRM FORFEITURE OF INTEREST IN ESTATE AND FOR COURT
DETERMINATION OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE
DECEDENT’S ESTATE (PROBATE CODE (PROBATE CODE §§250, et. seq.11700)
Preview
William H. Holsinger, Esq. (SBN 084528) Law Office of William H. Holsinger 1710 So. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 210A San Mateo, CA 94402-2705 ELECTRONICALLY Telephone: (650) 340-7500 Email: William@HolsingerLawOffice.com FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Attorney for Debra J. Dolch, Administrator with Will Annexed 04/05/2023 Clerk of the Court BY: CARLOS MURILLO Deputy Clerk Superior Court of California City and County of San Francisco 10 11 Estate of: ) Case No. PES-04-286107 12 Anne Shirley Outin, aka Anne S., Outin, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED 13 Deceased, ) PETITION TO CONFIRM FORFEITURE OF 14 ) INTEREST IN ESTATE AND FOR COURT DETERMINATION OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE 15 DECEDENT’S ESTATE (PROBATE CODE 16 (PROBATE CODE §§250, et. seq.11700) 17 Date: May 16, 2023 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 204 (Probate) 18 COMES NOW the petitioner, Debra J. Dolch, Administtrator with the Will Annexed for 19 the estate of Anne Shirley Outin, aka Anne S. Outin, deceased, and submits the following 20 memorandum of points and authorities in support of her amended petition to determine and 21 declare the forfeiture of Thomas Z. Hanley (“Hanley”), the son of the decedent, in the probate 22 estate of the decedent, and to determine the persons entitled to distribution of the decedent’s 23 estate, pursuant to Probate Code §§250, et seq., and 11700. 24 //1 25 11 26 OutinProbate\Pleadings/230404MPA 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED PETITION TO CONFIRM FORFEITURE OF INTEREST IN ESTATE AND FOR COURT DETERMINATION OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE DECEDENT’S ESTATE (PROBATE CODE (PROBATE CODE §§250, et. seq.11700) Determination of Persons Entitled to Distribution Probate Code 11700 provides: "At any time after letters are first issued to a general personal representative and before an order for final distribution is made, the personal representative, or any person claiming to be a beneficiary or otherwise entitled to distribution of a share of the estate, may file a petition for a court determination of the persons entitled to distribution of the decedent's estate. The petition shall include a statement of the basis for the petitioner's claim." Thomas Z. Hanley, the adopted son and only child of the decedent is the sole 10 beneficiary designated under the Will of the decedent, as well as under the related trust 11 agreement of the decedent, now the subject of a separate action in this Court (Case No. PTR- 12 18-302220). Hanley had no children. The decedent's sole heir at law, in the absence of an 13 interest by Hanley, was her mother, Mabel Cocking, a resident of England. She survived the 14 decedent, but has since died. Mabel Cocking left her own will, leaving her estate to the Royal 15 National Institute for the Blind and her other daughter, May Findlay, aka Mai Findlay, both also 16 in England. The appointment of a personal representative for the estate of Mabel Cocking is 17 pending. 18 Unworthy Heir/Slayer Statutes 19 The most widely accepted "unworthy heir" absolute exception to statutory and common 20 law inheritance rights involve extinguishing such rights through what are known as "slayer 21 statutes.” Since the 1800s, courts in the United States have flatly refused to permit murderers 22 to benefit from their crimes by inheriting, either under a will or through intestate succession 23 statutes, from people that they feloniously killed. Slayer statutes began to codify the common 24 law maxim ex turpis causa non actio (no action can arise from an illegal act), originally used in 25 England to deal with the problem of murderous heirs. 26 OutinProbate\Pleadings/230404MPA 2; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED PETITION TO CONFIRM FORFEITURE OF INTEREST IN ESTATE AND FOR COURT DETERMINATION OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE DECEDENT’S ESTATE (PROBATE CODE (PROBATE CODE §§250, et. seq.11700) This maxim first became American common law when it was adopted by the United States Supreme Court in the case of New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong (1886) 117 U.S. 591, when the Court held that "[i]t would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of the country if one could recover insurance money payable on the death of a party whose life he had feloniously taken.” Eventually, this rule was adopted by state courts, beginning in 1889 in the New York case of Riggs v. Palmer (N.Y. 1889) 22 N.E. 188, with these resounding words: “No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his 10 own crime. These maxims are dictated by public policy, have their foundation in 11 universal law administered in all civilized countries, and have nowhere been 12 superseded by statutes.” 13 Most states have adopted “slayer statutes” that codify this principle. See e.g., California 14 Probate Code §250. Both the Uniform Probate Code’ and statutes adopted by various states 15 seek to “plug” any loopholes that might be found. Recognizing, for example, that not all killers 16 are convicted, California adopted Probate Code §254, to distinguish, and set up a two-tier 17 system for determining the application of §250 between those convicted of murder and others 18 “€a) A final judgment of conviction of felonious and intentional killing is 19 conclusive for purposes of this part. 20 21 22 ‘ For example, §2-803(b) of the Martindale-Hubbell Uniform and Model Acts 1999 provides 23 that “[a]n individual who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent forfeits all benefits under this Article with respect to the decedent's estate, including an 24 intestate share, an elective share, an omitted spouse's or child's share, a homestead allowance, exempt property, and a family allowance. If the decedent 25 died intestate, the decedent's intestate estate passes as if the killer disclaimed his [or her] intestate share.” See also, California Probate Code §§251-253. 26 OutinProbate\Pleadings/230404MPA 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED PETITION TO CONFIRM FORFEITURE OF INTEREST IN ESTATE AND FOR COURT DETERMINATION OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE DECEDENT’S ESTATE (PROBATE CODE (PROBATE CODE §§250, et. seq.11700) (b) In the absence of a final judgment of conviction of felonious and intentional killing, the court may determine by a preponderance of evidence whether the killing was felonious and intentional for purposes of this part. The burden of proof is on the party seeking to establish that the killing was felonious and intentional for the purposes of this part.” This principle is so well-established that there is a dearth of litigation and appellate decisions on this issue. The instant situation fits squarely within this framework. Thomas Z. Hanley, the adopted son of Anne Shirley Outin, was convicted of second-degree murder for her death. 10 This conviction, or judgment, is final. a In order to pass the decedent's estate to the next in line, which are the British 12 beneficiaries of the decedent’s mother’s will, this determination of forfeiture, as well as a 13 determination of the next in line to inherit the decedent's estate, are necessary at some point. 14 Making this ruling now, will support the efforts in England to (re)open the estate of Mabel 15 Cocking, so that a judicially appointed personal representative of Ms. Cocking’s estate is 16 identified to receive the trust assets. 17 Dated: April aves 2023 18 Law Office of William H. Holsinger 19 ZL a 20 a By. ~-Kttorney for Debra J. Dolch 21 Successor Trust 22 23 24 25 26 OutinProbate\Pleadings/230404MPA 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED PETITION TO CONFIRM FORFEITURE OF INTEREST IN ESTATE AND FOR COURT DETERMINATION OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE DECEDENT’S ESTATE (PROBATE CODE (PROBATE CODE §§250, et. seq.11700)