Teresa Larkin died in 2003 with $703,000 in life insurance proceeds payable to her husband, Dale. The decedent’s daughter (Husband’s stepdaughter) sued Dale Larkin, alleging that he killed her mother and that, under the “Slayer Rule“, which prevents a person from taking property at the death of someone he or she intentionally kills, he was not legally entitled to any of the insurance proceeds. The parties settled this initial case in 2006, with the daughter receiving $500,000 in insurance proceeds, $180,000 of which went for her attorneys’ fees.
The police investigation into Teresa Larkin’s death continued and Dale Larkin was charged and later convicted of the first degree murder. Daughter sued Dale Larkin, asking the Court to set aside the prior settlement agreement on the basis that she was fraudulently induced to enter into the agreement by Mr. Larkin’s assertions of innocence. The trial court dismissed Daughter’s Complaint and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court of Appeals first ruled that Daughter’s Complaint was time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Court also ruled that Daughter did not have a claim for fraud because there was no evidence that she relied upon Dale Larkin’s assertions of innocence because she had always maintained that he killed her mother. The Court stated that it was not happy with the results of its decision, but it recognized that it was constrained to decide the case based upon the principle of American jurisprudence that a judgment must have finality and that the circumstances by which a party may overturn a prior final judgment are narrow. Gentry v. Larkin, No. E2011-02402-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2012).
