You’ve seen it before in movies and TV shows – a character inherits a life-changing amount of money from a distant relative, some stuck-up villain tries to get in the way, hilarity and hijinks ensue, and everyone learns a valuable lesson.

Think of Adam Sandler in Mr. Deeds, where our lovable schlub hero inherits billions of dollars, or the movie it was based on, 1936’s Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, where the title character is played by Gary Cooper, who inherits billions of dollars and also (one assumes) goes to town. (That movie should be called Mr. Deeds Inherits a Billion Dollars if you ask me, but what do I know? I’m just a successful practicing attorney, not a 1930’s Hollywood screenwriter.)

Think of Richard Pryor in Brewster’s Millions, who stands to inherit a large fortune if he can spend it in 30 days (this movie sounds insane) or any number of plot lines in Downton Abbey. What none of these movies or TV shows teach us though, is could any of this actually happen?

The answer is found in what courts call the “laughing heir” statute.

It is known as the “laughing heir” because that is what these statutes are meant to prevent – a situation where someone gets a letter saying their mom’s aunt’s cousin in Denmark died and they’re the late stranger’s only living relative. That person receiving that letter wouldn’t feel any sense of loss or pain; remember, this person who died, though distant family, is a complete stranger whose existence was completely unknown before the letter saying she’s left you a million bucks.

You’d probably laugh too, right?

The “laughing heir” statute refers to the legal provision that limits the inheritance rights of  distant relatives in cases of intestate succession. In the context of U.S. law, the “laughing heir” rule is applied to prevent these distant relatives from inheriting the decedent’s estate. Instead, the estate is distributed to closer relatives such as the decedent’s descendants, parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles, and their descendants. If the decedent is not survived by any of these relatives, the estate may be distributed to the children of the last deceased spouse of the decedent.

Again, though, we’re already getting a little too remotely related to the deceased person that a court (and the government) might think that person doesn’t deserve that money. Who does the government think might deserve it? You’ll never believe it, but they think they do.  In some cases, if there are no eligible heirs, the property may escheat (which means “go to,” essentially) to the state.   

So, again, modern courts don’t like seeing someone inherit money who doesn’t deserve it. Let’s say a father leaves his son $1 million in his will. The son then murders the father. The will didn’t say “unless he murders me,” though – it just said the son gets the money when the father dies. Still it’s safe to say the son doesn’t deserve that money now, right? A court wouldn’t say so.

Courts now follow the “slayer statute” –  a legal provision enacted in many states to prevent a person who has feloniously caused the death of another from inheriting or receiving any part of the estate of the deceased. The primary purpose of this statute is to prevent the perpetrator from benefiting from the death of the victim or profiting from their wrongdoing.

The slayer statute in Connecticut, specifically Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-447, provides that a person who is responsible for the death of another is not entitled to any share of the decedent’s estate. The slayer statute in Massachusetts, also known there as the “slayer rule,” stipulates that an individual who unlawfully and intentionally kills the decedent forfeits all benefits with respect to the decedent’s estate. This includes any kind of inheritance – an intestate share, an elective share, an omitted spouse’s or child’s share, exempt property, and a family allowance. And if you don’t know what all of those words mean, well… subscribe to this blog.

Courts aren’t as clear on the “laughing heir” statute as they are about the “slayer statute” – pretty much everyone agrees you shouldn’t be able to inherit your grandfather’s money if you murder said grandfather. But courts are vague as to the laughing heir statute. ​​For instance, there’s no specific information about a “laughing heir” statute in Massachusetts or Connecticut. However, you can get a sense of where Connecticut stands by taking a look at their laws regarding inheritance and estate administration. For instance, Connecticut law emphasizes that heirs at law should not be disinherited unless there is “clear intent to do so.” And remember, Massachusetts is equally vague here. So if you don’t make your intent clear that you don’t want someone to benefit from your death, you might have an heir laughing at your demise. You can make your intent clear by drafting a will with an attorney such as myself.

I hope, like Mr. Deeds, this blog took you on a journey where you laughed, cried, and learned a few valuable lessons along the way. The lesson here? Have a will. You don’t want someone you’ve never met cracking up and throwing high fives when they receive a letter telling them you’re dead.