Can You Inherit from Someone You Tried to Kill? The Michigan Case that Surprised Everyone
If you spend enough time in trusts and estates, you eventually learn that the law and common sense don’t always travel together. A recent Michigan case illustrates this perfectly, raising a question most people never imagine needing to answer: Can someone inherit from a person they were once accused of trying to kill? It’s an uncomfortable question, and the answer is not what most people expect.
This case centers around a trust created by a man named Donald shortly before his death in 2017. His wife, Elaine, became the sole beneficiary after he died, and their son, Donnie, was next in line. The trustee at the time, Michael, was not a family member but had been named in the trust documents as a future beneficiary after Donnie’s death. Within months, however, the probate court removed Michael as trustee, a notable action that suggested the court had concerns about how the trust was being managed.
A few years later, after Donnie and Elaine both died of natural causes, Michael remained the last beneficiary listed. That alone might raise eyebrows, but the situation became more complicated when Elaine’s niece challenged the final distribution to Michael. Her challenge was based on a serious revelation: that Michael had previously been criminally charged with soliciting the murders of both Elaine and Donnie.
The charge itself did not result in a conviction. The person who reported the solicitation, the alleged hitman, testified at a preliminary hearing but died before the trial began, leaving prosecutors without the witness necessary to proceed. The charges were eventually dismissed.
Even with this history, the central legal question remained: Does the slayer statute apply when the decedent was not actually killed?
In Michigan, the statute only applies if the person “feloniously and intentionally kills” the decedent. If no death occurred, the statute does not apply.Because Elaine and Donnie both died naturally, the court could not disqualify Michael from inheriting under the slayer statute. Legally, he remained entitled to what the trust document said he should receive.
This outcome feels counterintuitive to many people. But it illustrates something I see repeatedly when reviewing estate plans: if your documents aren’t clear, if your fiduciary choices aren’t solid, or if you haven’t considered the full range of “what ifs,” the results can be unpredictable, and permanent.
This trust had several issues that made it vulnerable:
It was created very close to the grantor’s death.
There were questions about whether the grantor understood the full scope of what he was signing.
The trustee selection created a conflict of interest.
Asset transfers occurred in ways that caused further confusion later.
For me, the takeaway from this case is simple: Your estate plan is only as strong as the structure, clarity, and people you choose to carry it out. If something goes wrong later, courts won’t default to what “feels right.” They will default to what the documents say and what the law allows.
That’s why I’m always encouraging people to revisit their plans with a critical eye. Ask yourself:
Do I fully trust the person I named as trustee or executor?
Are they equipped to handle the responsibility?
Is my plan written clearly enough that no one has to guess my intentions?
Are there fail-safes in case relationships change, people pass away, or unexpected events occur?
You don’t have to predict every possible scenario. But you can make decisions that limit the opportunities for things to go sideways and protect your family from ending up in a situation like this one. In estate planning, surprises rarely feel like gifts. Getting ahead of them is one of the best protections you can give your family.
Listen to the full episode here:
