Under the UPC’s Slayer Rule, may the killer’s issue take when relevant?

• A. Yes, the killer’s issue may take if relevant.
• B. No, they may never take.
• C. Yes, only if the killer was convicted.
• D. Yes, regardless of the killer’s actions.

Answer: (A)

Under the Slayer Rule, a person who feloniously killed the decedent cannot receive what would have passed to them. But the rule doesn’t shut out the killer’s relatives entirely. Instead, the estate is treated as if the killer had predeceased the decedent, so the killer’s issue (their children) can take by representation if they would have inherited in that scenario. In other words, the killer’s heirs step in only to the extent they would have if the killer had not killed, making the killer’s issue the beneficiaries when appropriate. This is why the correct choice is that the killer’s issue may take if relevant.

The other options don’t fit: the rule does not require conviction to bar the killer, nor does it grant inheritance regardless of actions, and it is not a blanket prohibition on the killer’s relatives taking—only the killer themselves are disqualified, with their issue potentially stepping in by representation.