Common disasters clauses in Texas wills.

In Texas inheritance cases, the concept of a “common disaster” can significantly impact the distribution of assets. When a married couple makes a will, they often include specific instructions about what should happen to their belongings if they both pass away in a “common disaster.” But what if the circumstances surrounding their deaths are complicated? This is exactly what happened in the tragic case of Vencie and Melba Beard (485 S.W.3d 914 (2016)), and it raises important questions about the law, especially regarding something known as the “slayer statute.”

The Tragic Events

The case of Vencie and Melba Beard illustrates how tragic circumstances can complicate the execution of wills and lead to legal disputes. In a heartbreaking incident, Vencie Beard shot and killed his wife, Melba, before taking his own life. Following their deaths, their wills became a focal point of legal debate. Each will stated that if both spouses died in a “common disaster,” their assets should be distributed to certain individuals. But here’s the twist: Melba died first at 8:59 p.m., and Vencie died later at 10:55 p.m. The case doesn’t explain how this information was known, but it was probably taken from the autopsy report. This timing led to a legal challenge. The “certain individuals” claimed that Melba and Vencie died in a “common disaster” so they would inherit. Other parties did not want “certain individuals” to inherit and claimed that Melba and Vencie did not die in a “common disaster.”

What is a “Common Disaster”?

The term “common disaster” refers to a situation where two or more people die almost simultaneously due to the same event, making it impossible to tell who died first. This concept is important for ensuring that assets are divided according to the deceased’s wishes, even when the order of death is unclear. A Texas statute deals with common disasters when the will does not define a common disaster. See “Required Period of Survival for Devisee” in the Texas Estate Code.

The Legal Dispute

Elaine Stephens, who was in charge of handling the Beards’ estates, filed lawsuits arguing that the couple did not die in a common disaster. The trial court ruled that they did die in a common disaster, stating that the term should apply in this case. However, when the case went to appeal, the court recognized that the deaths did not meet the legal definition of a common disaster because Vencie had clearly survived Melba for a significant time.

The Slayer Statute Explained

Here’s where the Slayer statute comes into play. This legal principle states that if someone kills another person, they cannot inherit from that person’s estate. Essentially, you cannot benefit from your own wrongdoing. In this case, because Vencie shot Melba, he would be barred from inheriting her property under this statute, regardless of how the court interpreted their wills. Texas does not have a Slayer statute, but relatives can take other actions to ensure that the Slayer does not inherit from his wrongdoing. See the article here and here.

The Court’s Decision

Ultimately, the court decided that the Beards did not die in a common disaster because Vencie survived Melba for nearly two hours. This ruling meant that “certain individuals” who would have inherited if the deaths resulted from a common disaster did not inherit.

Why This Matters

The Vencie and Melba Beard case underscores the importance of clear language in wills and the implications of tragic circumstances.

Conclusion

This case serves as a reminder of how important it is to think carefully about estate planning. If you’re drafting a will, consider consulting with a legal professional to ensure your intentions are clear and that your wishes will be honored, even in unfortunate circumstances.

If you have questions about inheritance disputes in Texas, contact us for a consultation.

Subscribe to our newsletter for more insights on estate planning and inheritance laws.