The Menendez Brothers: A Crime That Shocked the Nation
In 1989, Lyle and Erik Menendez were thrust into the national spotlight when they were charged with the brutal murders of their parents, José and Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills mansion. Initially, the brothers claimed the crime was committed by unknown assailants, but as the investigation unfolded, a much darker family narrative emerged—one filled with secrets, abuse, and betrayal.
The Menendez brothers alleged they killed their parents as a result of years of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse inflicted by their father. Their defense aimed to paint a sympathetic picture of their actions, describing a life of fear and desperation. Despite these claims, the jury found Lyle and Erik Menendez guilty of first-degree murder in 1996.
This case, already infamous, has been revisited in the recent Netflix series Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, which dives deeper into the brothers' defense and their complex family dynamics. As this true-crime drama brings renewed attention to the Menendez case, one critical legal question looms: Could Lyle and Erik have inherited their parents' fortune after being convicted of their murders?
The Slayer Rule and California Law: Stopping Murderers from Benefiting
The Menendez case provides a textbook example of the “Slayer Rule” in action. The Slayer Rule is a legal principle present in many U.S. states, including California, designed to prevent individuals who commit murder from inheriting the victim’s estate. Under this rule, a person convicted of murder cannot financially benefit from their crime.
In the Menendez brothers' case, despite their parents' vast wealth, Lyle and Erik were legally disqualified from inheriting any portion of the estate after their conviction. The defense’s claim of abuse, while central to the trial, did not override the California Slayer Rule, which is clear: A conviction for murder, regardless of motive, disqualifies an individual from financial gain.
Under California Probate Code Section 250, a person who 'feloniously and intentionally' kills another is treated as though they predeceased the victim, meaning that, legally, Lyle and Erik Menendez did not exist in their parents’ will. This disqualified them from inheriting their parents' estate, including any potential life insurance payouts or other financial benefits.
This law serves an essential role in the pursuit of justice, ensuring that convicted murderers cannot profit from their crimes—whether in the Menendez case or in other high-profile instances, such as the ongoing Brian Walshe case, where similar legal principles apply.
Comparison with Other High-Profile Cases: The Slayer Rule Across States
The Menendez case isn't the only high-profile instance where the Slayer Rule has come into play. More recently, in Massachusetts, the case of Brian Walshe, accused of murdering his wife Ana, has drawn comparisons. Just like Lyle and Erik Menendez, Walshe faces the possibility of being disqualified from inheriting his wife's estate if he is convicted.
Both cases highlight how the Slayer Rule acts as a safeguard across states, preventing those who commit murder from benefiting financially. While the Menendez brothers were convicted in California under codified Slayer Rule laws, Massachusetts applies the same principle through its law – Mass. General laws Ch. 265, s. 46. This consistency between states underscores the importance of the Slayer Rule in preventing murderers from exploiting their victims’ estates.
Although the circumstances of each case differ—Lyle and Erik were young men claiming to act out of trauma, while Brian Walshe’s case involves alleged premeditation without allegations of abuse—the principle remains the same. In both instances, the Slayer Rule ensures that even claims of abuse or mitigating circumstances do not allow convicted murderers to inherit from their victims.
Public outrage has been a common thread in both cases, with many decrying the idea that someone could financially benefit from murder. This reaction only strengthens the resolve behind the Slayer Rule, which exists in various forms across the United States to uphold the moral principle that crime should never pay.
Public Reaction and Legal Impact: Ensuring Justice Through the Slayer Rule
The Menendez case, much like the Walshe case, sparked widespread public debate. For many, the idea that a convicted murderer could inherit from their victim seems inherently unjust. This is where the Slayer Rule steps in, ensuring that financial consequences align with moral outrage, further solidifying the principle that crime must not be rewarded.
In the case of Lyle and Erik Menendez, their conviction not only resulted in life sentences without the possibility of parole, but also barred them from receiving any portion of their parents' estate. This was a clear message from the legal system: justice would not allow them to profit from the brutal murder of their parents, despite their defense of abuse. Public sentiment surrounding the case, both during the trial and decades later, reflects the widespread belief that the brothers should not have the right to inherit.
Similarly, the ongoing Brian Walshe case in Massachusetts has prompted similar discussions. The Slayer Rule will likely disqualify him from inheriting his wife Ana’s estate if he is found guilty. This consistency across cases further proves the necessity of the Slayer Rule in preventing murderers from benefiting financially from their crimes.
Beyond its direct impact on inheritance, the Slayer Rule serves a broader legal purpose. It reinforces the idea that crime, especially heinous acts like murder, must not be rewarded under any circumstances. Without this law, victims' estates could be manipulated and further harmed by those responsible for their deaths.
Where did the Menendez Money go?
After Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted of the murders of their parents, they were disqualified from inheriting the family estate due to California's Slayer Rule. With the brothers unable to inherit, the remainder of the Menendez estate was distributed to other relatives, though the estate itself was significantly reduced by legal fees and other costs associated with the trials.
It’s reported that José and Kitty Menendez did not leave a formal will, so their estate would have been divided according to California’s intestate succession laws. In the absence of direct heirs (due to the Slayer Rule disqualifying Lyle and Erik), the estate would have passed to extended family members, such as nieces, nephews, or other close relatives. Additionally, several lawsuits were filed against the estate by creditors, further depleting the available assets.
Despite initially gaining access to their parents' wealth following the murders, the Menendez brothers quickly depleted the estate, valued at approximately $14 million, through extravagant spending and legal fees before their conviction.
Ultimately, the exact details of who specifically inherited the remaining portions of the estate are less well-documented, but it is clear that neither of the Menendez brothers benefited from their parents' wealth.
Conclusion: The Slayer Rule as a Pillar of Justice
The tragic story of Lyle and Erik Menendez, now highlighted in the Netflix series Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, continues to captivate audiences decades later. One of the lasting legacies of this case is how it underscores the importance of legal safeguards like the Slayer Rule, which ensures that murderers cannot financially benefit from their crimes.
In the Menendez case, the Slayer Rule effectively prevented Lyle and Erik from inheriting their parents' multimillion-dollar estate. This rule is more than just a technicality—it is a fundamental aspect of justice that ensures victims’ estates are protected and handled with fairness. In cases like the ongoing Walshe case in Massachusetts, the Slayer Rule will continue to serve its purpose of preventing wrongdoers from profiting from their actions.
As we reflect on these high-profile cases, the Slayer Rule remains a vital part of the legal system, ensuring that no matter the circumstances, crime does not pay. Whether in California, Massachusetts, or any other state, the Slayer Rule upholds the integrity of the law and justice for victims.
**Michael Monteforte Jr. is an estate planning and elder law attorney licensed to practice in MA, NH and NY. Attorney Monteforte is not a licensed California attorney, and none of the foregoing should be considered legal advice.
