Clymer v. Mayo, 393 Mass. 754, 473 N.E.2d 1084 (Mass. 1985)
Clymer v. Mayo is a leading decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that powerfully illustrates how equity polices modern estate planning arrangements.
Does the slayer rule bar a murderer from receiving benefits through a revocable inter vivos trust and other nonprobate transfers, and, if so, should the slayer be treated as having predeceased the decedent such that the trust's alternate remainder beneficiaries take by acceleration?
A person who feloniously and intentionally kills another may not profit, directly or indirectly, from the victim's death. This equitable slayer rule applies not only to probate transfers (by will or intestacy) but also to nonprobate transfers, including revocable inter vivos trusts, joint tenancies, life insurance and similar will substitutes. Courts may impose a constructive trust and treat the killer as having predeceased the victim to carry out the decedent's dispositive plan and prevent unjust enrichment, including acceleration of remainder interests where a disqualified beneficiary would otherwise have taken a prior interest. In Massachusetts, a pour-over from a will to an inter vivos trust is valid even if the trust is amendable or amended, and property poured over is administered according to the trust's terms as they exist at the settlor's death.
Yes. The slayer rule bars the husband from receiving any benefit arising from the decedent's death, including as beneficiary of the revocable trust and other nonprobate transfers. The husband is treated as having predeceased the decedent, the equitable remedy of constructive trust prevents his enrichment, and the trust's remainder interests are accelerated to the alternate beneficiaries designated by the decedent.
Clymer v. Mayo is widely taught because it integrates classic equitable doctrine with modern estate planning. It confirms that the slayer rule reaches will substitutes, preventing a killer from circumventing public policy through revocable trusts, joint arrangements, or beneficiary designations. The case also illustrates how courts use constructive trusts and the legal fiction that the slayer predeceased to implement the decedent's plan and accelerate remainder interests. For students, it is a cornerstone on the intersection of trusts, wills, and restitution, and a practical reminder that doctrinal rules must adapt to contemporary wealth-transfer vehicles.