Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 21: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Admin No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|editor= | |editor= | ||
The Texas Attorney General, in Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. [https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2008/ga0632.pdf#page=7 GA-632] (2008), opined that this section: "provides that 'no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate,' which means that a person may not be denied the right to inherit on the basis of a criminal conviction. Texas courts have found limits to that provision in the Slayer's Rule and the constructive trust doctrine, which prevent a convicted murderer from receiving life insurance proceeds or inheriting property from the murder victim." | |||
|recent= | |recent= | ||
| Line 21: | Line 17: | ||
* ''Mitchell v. Akers'', 401 S.W.2d 907, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15926852054926593598#p911 911] (Tex.Civ.App.–Dallas 1966, n.r.e.) (citations omitted) ("Early decisions construed the constitutional provision and the statute literally and held that a willful murderer who was an heir of his victim, did not forfeit his right but would inherit his part of the property of the deceased. However, later decisions hold that without contravening or circumventing the constitutional and statutory provisions a way is provided through equity to compel a murderer to surrender the profits of his crime and thus . . . . Our Supreme Court in discussing ''Hill v. Noland'', ''supra'', impliedly approved the constructive trust principle.") | * ''Mitchell v. Akers'', 401 S.W.2d 907, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15926852054926593598#p911 911] (Tex.Civ.App.–Dallas 1966, n.r.e.) (citations omitted) ("Early decisions construed the constitutional provision and the statute literally and held that a willful murderer who was an heir of his victim, did not forfeit his right but would inherit his part of the property of the deceased. However, later decisions hold that without contravening or circumventing the constitutional and statutory provisions a way is provided through equity to compel a murderer to surrender the profits of his crime and thus . . . . Our Supreme Court in discussing ''Hill v. Noland'', ''supra'', impliedly approved the constructive trust principle.") | ||
* ''American National Insurance Co. v. Coates'', 246 S.W. 356, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''American National Insurance Co. v. Coates'', 246 S.W. 356, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/246_SW_356.pdf#page=4 359] (Tex. 1923) ("It being the policy of the state, as declared by these constitutional and statutory provisions, that no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate, as applied to the inheritable estate of the party executed, we cannot see any reason why the same declaration should not be made to apply to the proceeds of an insurance policy, payable to beneficiaries who were in no wise a party to the offense against the law, and, as in this case, who would be under our statute of descent and distribution the parties who would benefit by the inheritable estate.") | ||
* ''Davis v. Laning'', 19 S.W. 846, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/019_SW_846.pdf#page=1 846] (Tex. 1892) ("Attainders, outlawry, deprivation of property except by due process of law, and the corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate, as a result of conviction of crime, are expressly prohibited by the organic law. Const. art. 1, §§ 16, 19-21. Section 21 declares that . . . . This provision is invoked by the plaintiffs in error, but it aids their case no further than a declaration that a convict may either inherit himself or transmit inheritance. It does not attempt to determine at what time the descent of his estate shall be cast, but excludes this idea by the express regulation concerning the estates of suicides.") | |||
|seo_title=Article I, Section 21 of the Texas Constitution ("Corruption of Blood; Forfeiture of Estate; Suicides") | |||
|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 21, estate forfeiture, commit suicide | |||
|seo_description=The estates of those who commit suicide descend and vest in the same manner as those who die a natural death. | |||
|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:09, July 11, 2023
Adopted February 15, 1876:
No conviction shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate, and the estates of those who destroy their own lives shall descend or vest as in case of natural death.
Editor Comments
The Texas Attorney General, in Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. GA-632 (2008), opined that this section: "provides that 'no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate,' which means that a person may not be denied the right to inherit on the basis of a criminal conviction. Texas courts have found limits to that provision in the Slayer's Rule and the constructive trust doctrine, which prevent a convicted murderer from receiving life insurance proceeds or inheriting property from the murder victim."
Recent Decisions
None.
Historic Decisions
- Bounds v. Caudle, 560 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex. 1977) (citations omitted) ("This rule is particularly applicable here where the conviction was based upon plea bargaining. Texas courts have taken the position that the law will impose a constructive trust upon the property of a deceased which passed either by inheritance or by will if the beneficiary wilfully and wrongfully caused the death of the deceased. The trust is a creature of equity and does not contravene constitutional and statutory prohibitions against forfeiture because title to the property does actually pass to the killer. The trust operates to transfer the equitable title to the trust beneficiaries.")
- Mitchell v. Akers, 401 S.W.2d 907, 911 (Tex.Civ.App.–Dallas 1966, n.r.e.) (citations omitted) ("Early decisions construed the constitutional provision and the statute literally and held that a willful murderer who was an heir of his victim, did not forfeit his right but would inherit his part of the property of the deceased. However, later decisions hold that without contravening or circumventing the constitutional and statutory provisions a way is provided through equity to compel a murderer to surrender the profits of his crime and thus . . . . Our Supreme Court in discussing Hill v. Noland, supra, impliedly approved the constructive trust principle.")
- American National Insurance Co. v. Coates, 246 S.W. 356, 359 (Tex. 1923) ("It being the policy of the state, as declared by these constitutional and statutory provisions, that no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate, as applied to the inheritable estate of the party executed, we cannot see any reason why the same declaration should not be made to apply to the proceeds of an insurance policy, payable to beneficiaries who were in no wise a party to the offense against the law, and, as in this case, who would be under our statute of descent and distribution the parties who would benefit by the inheritable estate.")
- Davis v. Laning, 19 S.W. 846, 846 (Tex. 1892) ("Attainders, outlawry, deprivation of property except by due process of law, and the corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate, as a result of conviction of crime, are expressly prohibited by the organic law. Const. art. 1, §§ 16, 19-21. Section 21 declares that . . . . This provision is invoked by the plaintiffs in error, but it aids their case no further than a declaration that a convict may either inherit himself or transmit inheritance. It does not attempt to determine at what time the descent of his estate shall be cast, but excludes this idea by the express regulation concerning the estates of suicides.")
Library Resources
- Vernon's Annotated Constitution of the State of Texas (this multi-volume and up-to-date resource is available at all law libraries and many municipal libraries)
- The Texas State Constitution: A Reference Guide (this one-volume resource is available at most law libraries and some municipal libraries)
- The Constitution of the State of Texas: An Annotated and Comparative Analysis (this two-volume resource is available at most law libraries and some municipal libraries)
Online Resources
- Constitution of the State of Texas (1876) (this resource is published and maintained by the University of Texas School of Law)
- Amendments to the Texas Constitution Since 1876 (this resource is published and regularly updated by the Legislative Council)
- Reports Analyzing Proposed Amendments (this resource is published and regularly updated by the Legislative Reference Library)