Some of you may have read about the case of Sheila von Wiese Mack (the Bali Suitcase Murder) where Heather Mack and her boyfriend murdered Heather’s mother in Bali, Indonesia. Heather is two months pregnant. There is a well known principle of law which prevents Heather from benefiting from the murder so she can’t inherit.
What about the unborn child after it is born? Can it inherit?
This will probably vary by jurisdiction, but generally speaking, my understanding is that the law you’re thinking of (they’re often known as “Son of Sam” laws) generally apply specifically to murderers benefiting from their crime. They’re generally specifically targeted at the person who commits the crime. An unborn baby would clearly not be the person who committed the crime and would therefore be as able to profit from the crime as any other person.
I do not know offhand (never having studied the matter) whether the Son of Sam laws have been specifically applied to persons INHERITING from the person they killed, as opposed to, for example, writing a tell-all biography/autobiography about their experience or selling the movie rights. I would imagine if they have been applied to inheritance, they are again only applicable against the person committing the crime, which would leave the unborn baby in the clear.
I also do not know offhand whether Son of Sam laws have been applied so as to supersede and/or replace otherwise legitimate testamentary documents. If they have, then I would presume that they function so as to treat the murderer as having predeceased their victim, which would leave the murderer’s bequests in the estate to be inherited by whoever their own testamentary documents indicate should inherit their estate. If Heather is married, then to her husband. If not, then broadly (via intestate succession in most jurisdictions), to her children in equal shares.
I may be wrong - and if so I imagine some Doper will be along to explain how 
Wills and Estates are a specialized field for a reason.
Would an unborn child have any right of inheritance? It isn’t born yet when the grandmother dies. It also wouldn’t be able to inherit through its mother after it is born, if the mother is not allowed to inherit.
First consideration is that this is a question of Law, not of Logic nor Science, and there is a huge gulf separating those concepts.
Second, there are several Law issues that differ (by comparable gulfs) according to the state of jurisdiction. One of them is whether or not the state has enacted a “personhood” statue with respect to the unborn child. Another is the laws of succession applicable in that state, and whether the deceased has a will or has died intestate.
In many jurisdictions an unborn child can inherit as if it was already born (in some cases only if it is subsequently born alive.) For common law jurisdictions, see en ventre sa mere. For civil law jurisdictions, see nasciturus pro iam nato habetur, quotiens de commodis eius agitur.
One of the reasons Trusts and Estates is pretty much a specialty is that there are jurisdictions and circumstances in which, depending on the wording of the testamentary documents, children conceived and born decades after someone dies are entitled to shares of the estate. In fact, one of the reasons the probate period exists (and is as lengthy as it is) is because it’s fairly common for wills to do things like divide an estate equally between “all my children.” Having a lengthy probate period gives time for all possible children of a male decedent to be born and have a claim made on their behalf.
You will need to consult an estate and probate lawyer in the jurisdiction you are considering.
It would be pretty weird if something that hasn’t been born yet can inherit property.
Yes I suppose that’s a normal reaction but not once you think through the legal relationships. Ctnguy has already mentioned the concept of en ventre sa mere.
What if the deceased mother’s will left property to her daughters children? Or the mother had established a trust which benefited those grandchildren including those yet to be born? So long as the trust did not breach any Rule against Perpetuities there wouldn’t be a problem.
At common law the Rule was 80 years plus a life in being - which included a child in the womb ie. en ventre sa mere. I’d guess most jurisdictions have now defined it by statute.
There are two different aspects of the common law that would likely apply here, unless altered by a statute. (Note: I’m talking common law, not Son of Sam laws.)
First, at common law, there was a general principle that a murderer could not benefit from the murder. So, if the murderer otherwise would have a right if inheritance from the deceased, whether by the deceased’s will or by intestacy rules, then the courts would administer the deceased’s estate as if the murderer had died just before the deceased.
The second principle is that a child en ventre sa mère ar the time of a death can inherit, if subsequently born alive and viable, and was mentioned in the deceased’s will or entitled under the interact rules.
So in the case mentioned by the OP, if it occurs in a jurisdiction governed by the traditional common law, for purposes of inheritance of the deceased’s estate, her daughter would be deemed to have died moments before the deceased died.
So would the child en ventre sa mère inherit anything? That would depend on two things: first, being subsequently born alive and viable, and second, having a right if inheritance under the deceased’s will. If the deceased left something to her murdering daughter, it’s quite common to have a clause that says “if one of the people named in my will pre-deceased me, then that person’s share of my estate goes to her surviving issue.”
So if the deceased left something in her will to her daughter, and if the will had a survivor clause, and if the child en ventre sa mère is born alive and viable, then the child may inherit.
All of which is pretty conjectural, and could be altered by statute law in the relevant jurisdiction, so definitely not to be taken as legal advice, just a comment on a legal issue of general interest.
Why? I ended up with a small trust and certain heirlooms from my great grandmother as eldest daughter of eldest son of eldest son [and what I will actually do with full on formal dinner gear for 16 in sterling silver, limoges porcelain and baccarat crystal when I live in an 800 sq foot house I have no idea. You can barely swing a cat when the 3 of us who actually live here sit down to dinner …]
[URL=“http://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/”]
You are talking about something like a bill of attainder, which is something countries that have royal lines can pass, where a person and all his issue can be barred from ascending to the throne. It is against the constitution to pass an attainder in the US.
I don’t think it matters whether the murderer is pregnant or not when she commits the crime. It’s the grandmother’s will that matters. If she dies intestate, then her estate will go to her nearest relative who is not involved in the crime, and I think that probably can’t be a fetus, although as someone said upthread, in states that give fetuses after a certain point (28 weeks gestation, for purposes of murder statutes, or whatever) may allow a fetus to inherit.
However, there’s going to have to be a disinterested trustee; the mother can’t be the trustee. This could end up being a terrible way to try to slip past a disinheritance law by getting control of the money as the child’s guardian.
There was another case that might be on point, though, for which my google-fu is failing me.
A woman’s husband died of cancer. After he was dead, she used sperm they had frozen, to get pregnant, and had his child. Then she applied for Social Security survivor’s benefits for the child. She was denied, on the basis that the child was not a survivor, having not been born when his father died. Survivors benefits are intended to help people caught in a sudden bad situation. If the woman knew she would need them, she should not have had the child, the court reasoned.
So, it might be that in a case where the grandmother dies intestate, the unborn fetus can’t be considered a survivor, and therefore can’t inherit. If there are no survivors who can legally inherit, the state confiscates the estate, and given that the state has an interest in this, it might be what would happen.
If another relative, such as the murdered woman’s sister, or the murderer’s brother, is going to get everything otherwise, and is very motivated to have the fetus “disinherited,” and is going to be in a position to hire a lawyer, and attend the civil litigation, I’ll bet they’ll win.
Here’s a nice summary of the “en ventre sa mère” doctrine, where an unborn child has a right of inheritance if subsequently born alive:
RivkahCheya, why do you assume it would not apply?
And another, from Answers.com:
Here’s one case - I’m pretty sure there were others. But apparently , in this case the issue wasn’t that the child hadn’t been born when his father died- it was that he hadn’t been conceived when his father died. There are two issues that apply to receiving Social Security benefits as a dependent that do not apply to inheriting from a grandparent. One is that the possibility of a child being conceived after a biological parent’s death is relatively recent compared to the possibility of a child being conceived after a grandparent’s death, which has always been possible. Two, the intent of SS survivor’s benefits is to provide for those who were dependent on a wage earner during his/her lifetime and state intestacy laws were used as a shortcut to avoid making case by case determinations.
Regarding the first point, the rules for children born after a parent’s death may not be the same for those born after a grandparent’s death but I would be surprised if there was anywhere in the US where a child conceived before the death but born alive after the death wouldn’t inherit, either under intestacy laws or a will directing that certain assets be divided among the children/grandchildren rather than mentioning them by name.