IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

January 2005 Term
No. 31764

RONALD L. PLUMLEY,
Plaintiff Below, Appellee

V.

LYNETTE Y. BLEDSOE, individually, and as
Executrix of the Estate of Margaret Holiday Plumley,
Defendant Below, Appellant

Submitted: January 18, 2005
Filed: March 17, 2005

Lynette Bledsoe, the appellant in the instant case, is the daughter and heir of the late Larry Plumley. Larry Plumley died by a self-inflicted gunshot wound on or about March 26, 2002. Approximately a week before taking his own life, on March 19, 2002, Larry Plumley intentionally and unlawfully shot and killed his mother, Margaret Plumley.
Margaret Plumley had two sons: the aforesaid Larry Plumley, and Ronald Plumley, who is the appellee in the instant case.

On August 3, 2001, Margaret Plumley made a will giving specific bequests to her two grandchildren, who are: (1) the appellant Lynette Bledsoe (who as noted is the daughter of the late Larry Plumley and who is also the executor of Margaret Plumley's estate); and (2) Mitchell Plumley, the child of Ronald Plumley.
Margaret Plumley's will left the remainder of her estate to her sons, Larry Plumley and Ronald Plumley, to be divided equally. However, her will stated clearly that if Larry or Ronald died before Margaret Plumley died, “my surviving son shall take the entirety of my residual estate.”

The instant case arose as a declaratory judgment action in the circuit court to determine who is entitled to the residual estate of Margaret Plumley.
Lynette Bledsoe's claim before the circuit court and this Court is primarily based on the fact that Lynette's father Larry did not predecease his mother. Lynette argues that therefore the anti-lapse statute (W.Va. Code, 41-3-3 [1923]) applies _ so that upon Margaret Plumley's death, Lynette Bledsoe, as Larry Plumley's heir, steps into Larry Plumley's shoes as heir to half of Margaret's residual estate. (See footnote 3)
Taking the contrary position, Ronald Plumley argued successfully to the circuit court (and argues to this Court), that Lynette Bledsoe's claim is barred by the “slayer rule” principles embodied in W.Va. Code, 42-4-2 [1931], which states:

No person who has been convicted of feloniously killing another, or of conspiracy in the killing of another, shall take or acquire any money or property, real or personal, or interest therein, from the one killed or conspired against, either by descent and distribution, or by will, or by any policy or certificate of insurance, or otherwise; but the money or the property to which the person so convicted would otherwise have been entitled shall go to the person or persons who would have taken the same if the person so convicted had been dead at the date of the death of the one killed or conspired against, unless by some rule of law or equity the money or the property would pass to some other person or persons. [emphasis added].

Ronald Plumley argues that the “slayer rule” expressed in this statute gives rise to a legal presumption that Larry Plumley predeceased his mother. If the death of Larry Plumley is treated as having occurred before his mother's death, then applying this presumption _ Ronald Plumley further argues _ the clear language of Margaret Plumley's will awards all of her residual estate to Ronald Plumley _ and none to Lynette Bledsoe.

As noted, the circuit court agreed with Ronald Plumley's argument, and awarded Margaret's entire residual estate to Ronald Plumley, from which decision Lynette Bledsoe appeals.

Click here to review the full text of these proceedings: Plunley v. Bledsoe
http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs/Spring05/31764.htm