CORREIRA & IACONO LLP

The Court of Appeal for Florida's First District recently held that a decedent's husband could not inherit a $2.3 million life insurance policy on his wife's life. The case highlights "state slayer statutes" which represent a traditional common law notion that felony murder convictions prohibit a person from benefiting from their actions. Under Florida law, a "final judgment of conviction of murder in any degree is conclusive" evidence for purposes of the state's slayer statute under F.S. 732.802. See: Barber v. Parrish, 2007 WL 2384521 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug 23, 2007).

At the time of her death, the decedent April Barber had a life insurance policy that named the appellant, her husband Justin Barber.  Barber appealed a final judgment in favor of the appellee Patricia Parrish, the decedent’s aunt and contingent beneficiary.  Both had submitted a claim to the insurance company at the same time which was also during a period of time in which Barber was under investigation for his wife’s murder.

The insurance company filed an interpleader complaint against Barber and Parrish.  Pursuant to a court order, the insurance company deposited the proceeds into a bank account pending the court’s determination of whether Barber should be denied entitlement to the proceeds under Florida law.

On September 15, 2006, Barber was found guilty of first-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment.  Parrish moved for summary judgment in her favor of her claim based on a  final judgment of conviction.  The civil trial court found that Barber’s  conviction was final for the purposes of the statute even though an appeal was pending and granted summary judgment and entered a final judgment directing the proceeds of the insurance policy to be distributed to Parrish.

On appeal, Barber argued that the trial court erred because his conviction could not be considered final before he had exhausted his appellate rights.

The Florida courts had previously rejected this argument in Prudential Insurance Company of America, Inc. v. Baitinger, 452 So. 2d 140, 141 9Fla. 3d DCA 1984).  In Cohen v. Cohen, 567 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), it was further held that in slayer statute cases there would be no irreparable harm to a primary beneficiary, even if a conviction is reversed because money damages could be sought from the contingent beneficiaries in such cases.