Ex-Buffalo Bills Player Wins Control Over Murdered Wife's Estate
The opinion tells the tragic story of Sandra Barnett, who married former NFL player Buster Barnett in 1987 and was kidnapped and killed in 2015 after a highly publicized police chase.
January 11, 2019 at 02:02 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Suppose a husband was having trouble divorcing his wife because she succeeded in having the final decree set aside, and suppose his girlfriend kidnapped the wife—in his car—and killed her. Would the husband, who denies any role in the murder, then be able to take over his dead wife's estate and act as her personal representative?
Yes, according to a ruling Thursday by the Georgia Court of Appeals in an unusual probate dispute. Judge Carla McMillian wrote for a unanimous panel that included Presiding Judge Anne Barnes and Judge Clyde Reese. They affirmed the position taken by Clayton County Probate Judge Pam Ferguson.
The opinion tells the tragic story of Sandra Barnett. In 1987, she married Buster Barnett, a former player with the NFL's Buffalo Bills. After 24 years, in 2011, he filed for divorce. When she didn't show for the bench trial in 2012, he was granted the decree he sought. She later argued that she never received the papers because he had them sent to the wrong address. She hired a lawyer to reopen discovery. The divorce was set aside in 2014. He filed for divorce again in June 2015.
But a month after the husband's second attempt to divorce his wife, his girlfriend, Lisa Brown, kidnapped Sandra from her home near Atlanta at gunpoint, according to McMillian. Later, police spotted Buster's SUV heading east on I-20 and followed it into Alabama. The chase ended when the girlfriend shot and killed Sandra and then herself, McMillian said.
News reports at the time of the murder-suicide identified Sandra as a teacher of special needs students.
In August 2015, Buster Barnett filed a petition to probate Sandra's will. Soon after, Sandra's sister, Donna Brooks, filed her own petition to probate the will. Brooks sought to invoke the “Slayer Statute” to disqualify the husband from taking charge of his wife's estate.
“In her petition, Brooks argued that Buster and Brown had been having an affair for over two years and lived together for several months prior to Sandra's murder and that Brown was driving Buster's car when she kidnapped Sandra,” McMillian said. “Brooks further alleged that Buster deceived Sandra until her death in order to avoid dividing their marital assets; that he was aware that Brown suffered from mental illness and had violent and suicidal tendencies; and that he conspired with Brown to have Sandra murdered.”
Buster Barnett argued that he did not kill his wife or conspire with anyone to kill her, McMillian said.
James Greason of Stone Mountain represented Brooks. Greason could not be reached for comment.
Joseph Todd of Jonesboro represented Buster Barnett.
“He had nothing to do with it,” Todd said Thursday regarding the kidnapping and murder-suicide. Todd said the couple's property and money were in the husband's name and that the probate claim from Sandra's family was an attempt to gain access to his estate.
“It looked like a money grab,” Todd said. “That's the only reason for it—to get his money.”
Georgia Supreme Court precedent “requires some form of judicial condemnation to divest a murderer or his or her interests from the murdered decedent's estate,” McMillian said, citing Levenson v. Word, 286 Ga. 114, 116 (686 SE2d 236) (2009).
“Here, it is undisputed that there has been no criminal conviction or civil proceeding establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Buster participated in the kidnapping and murder of his wife,” McMillian said. “No evidence has been presented that Buster knew about Brown's plans to kidnap Sandra, that he encouraged her to do so, or that he had done anything else to make himself a party to Brown's criminal acts. Without more, the probate court correctly granted summary judgment to Buster, and we must affirm.”
The case is Estate of Sandra Barnett, No. A18A1969.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the (Past) Week: Tackling a $4.7 Billion Verdict Post-Trial for the NFL in 'Sunday Ticket' Antitrust Litigation
Take-Two's Pete Welch on 'Getting the Best Results While Getting in the Way the Least'
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Beats Videogame Copyright Claim From Lebron James' Tattoo Artist
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250