The Iowa “Slayer Statute” Applied

July 29, 2010 | Erin Herbold

In Iowa, the “Slayer Statute” was enacted in 1987 to prevent murderers from inheriting property from an estate they are otherwise entitled to inherit from. In pertinent part, Iowa Code §633.535 provides that:

A person who intentionally and unjustifiably causes or procures the death of another shall not receive any property, benefit, or other interest by reason of the death as an heir, distributee, beneficiary, appointee, or in any other capacity whether the property, benefit, or other interest passed under any form of title registration, testamentary or nontestamentary instrument, intestacy, renunciation, or any other circumstance. The property, benefit, or other interest shall pass as if the person causing death died before the decedent.

On Oct. 14, 2006, Shawn Bentler murdered his entire immediate family, including his parents and three teenage sisters. He was convicted of their murders and sentenced to four concurrent life sentences and one consecutive life sentence in 2007. This litigation is a result of those murders and the administration of the parents’ extensive estate, valued at $2.8 million. After the estate was opened for probate, the father’s siblings, the mother’s parents, and the mother of Shawn’s young children all battled over how to divide the estate. An attorney was appointed to act as guardian ad litem (a person appointed by the court to represent the interests of minor children) and attorney for Shawn’s children. Since Shawn’s children were the only remaining heirs under the parent’s will, he argued that they should receive the entire estate. 

The trial court ruled that Shawn’s children were entitled to the entire estate, even though their father was prevented from inheriting under his parents’ will by the “Slayer Statute.” In the meantime, the children’s mother attempted to enter into a settlement agreement with the parents’ families. The court ruled that she had no authority to enter into a settlement agreement, because it was not in her children’s best interest (the legal standard the court must follow). 

After the trial court’s ruling, several parties sought to have the guardian ad litem removed from representation of the children. They claimed that his representation caused increased expense to the estate and in-fighting between opposing counsel. The court replaced the guardian ad litem, so he submitted a bill for his attorney fees of $65,738 for his work from the date of his appointment in early 2008. He later sought additional fees of $85,337.07 for work done between May 1, 2008 and May 8, 2009. The conservators for the children and their mother objected to this amount. The trial court later awarded the former guardian ad litem $45,553.57- nearly half of his original request. He appealed. 

The Iowa Court of Appeals addressed the fees issue and examined pertinent sections of the Iowa Code that allow for fees paid for services of the estate to an attorney, including Iowa Code §§633.118 and 633.120. Since the trial court awarded the former guardian ad litem significantly less in fees than he requested, the appellate court had to examine the trial transcripts and all court proceedings handled by the guardian ad litem. The appellate court found that some of the proceedings handled by the guardian ad litem were productive and results were positive. However, later on in the proceedings, the results obtained by his representation were often counterproductive and costly. 

The former guardian ad litem contended that the trial court did not consider the size of the estate, the amount of time involved, the responsibility he assumed, or the expenses he incurred in excess of those set out in the statute. While the court did not dispute that this was, indeed, a large estate and that a significant amount of time and expense was spent by the guardian ad litem, he overstated his expenses in the second year of his representation. He was already compensated for the work he did during the most important part of the proceedings in the initial stages. The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s final analysis on fees and found them to be equitable in this case. It seems that the court may have been more open a larger bill from the guardian ad litem if he had not created problems during the later proceedings. In re Estate of Bentler, No. 0-383/09-1065 (Iowa Ct. App., Jul. 28, 2010).