Man who killed fiancee could inherit $577,000 from her life insurance policies
October 4, 2015 by Dan Herbeck
Michael Moore shot and killed his fiancée, Kayla Humphries, in her North Buffalo apartment on the night of Aug. 9, 2013.
He readily admitted killing Humphries, but after a nonjury trial last year, a State Supreme Court judge found that Moore was “not criminally responsible” for her death because of mental illness.
Now Moore stands to collect as much as $577,000 from Humphries’ life insurance policies. He was designated as the sole beneficiary.
Judges in two different courts – Buffalo’s federal court and Erie County Surrogate’s Court – are trying to determine whether Moore is legally entitled to receive the money from the life insurance policies of the woman he killed.
“He is listed as her only beneficiary, and he was found to be not responsible for her death due to mental illness,” said Terrence M. Connors, who is Moore’s court-appointed attorney in the case. “Is he really entitled to inherit this money? Does he even want the money, or should this money be used for the benefit of his children? These are some of the questions I am looking at right now.”
Connors was recently assigned to the case and has not yet determined what Moore’s wishes are regarding the money.
After Moore was declared dangerously mentally ill, he was sent for an indefinite stay at a Rochester psychiatric facility, where he is held today.
Moore and Humphries had two young children together – a 9-year-old son and a 5-year-old daughter – and in the view of Humphries’ surviving family members, the insurance money should go to the children.
“After all these children have been through – losing their mother, being there in the apartment that night, and now having nightmares about it – it would be horrible for them to lose out on their mother’s insurance money,” said Lisa M. DeSabio, Humphries’ mother.
She is also administrator of Humphries’ estate and court-appointed guardian of the two children.
“This money should go to these children, for their futures,” she said.
Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III, whose office was unable to convict Moore of second-degree murder, agrees.
“It would be more than unfair. It would be a travesty of justice,” Sedita told The Buffalo News. “There’s no question in my mind that he murdered her. The question is whether he was legally insane or not. … The judge ruled that he was not criminally responsible because he was insane, a determination that I disagree with.”
Moore, now 33, should be barred from receiving any of the insurance money under the New York State “slayer law,” said Edward C. Robinson, a Buffalo attorney who represents the Humphries estate.
“He was found not responsible for her death because of his mental state, but he clearly caused her death and should not benefit from her insurance proceeds,” Robinson said.
Slayer law
A “slayer law” in New York that bars a murderer from inheriting money from someone he or she killed. But state courts have interpreted the law in different ways in cases involving people who were found not criminally responsible due to mental illness, said Robert M. Harper, a Long Island attorney who specializes in estate issues.
In February 2008, Leatrice Brewer drowned her three young children in a bathtub in her home in Nassau County. Brewer said she was trying to protect the children – ages 6, 5 and 18 months – from “voodoo,” according to police.
Like Moore, Brewer was found not responsible for the slayings due to mental illness, and like Moore, she was sent to a secure mental health facility.
Brewer’s estranged husband sued county officials, saying they had repeatedly missed warning signs and failed to protect the children, and he received $350,000 to settle the lawsuit.
Brewer then tried to collect $162,500 of that money. But a Nassau County Surrogate’s Court judge ruled in late 2013 that Brewer could not collect money.
“It is one thing to say that the state should not imprison one who was insane when she committed the murder. It is quite another to say that the insane murderer can profit from her crime,” said Judge Edward McCarty.
But over the decades, several New York courts have ruled differently, McCarty noted in his decision.
Killer collected estate
One of the cases McCarty cited was the 1969 slayings of William and Pearl Fitzsimmons of Amherst.
Their son, George, beat them to death. George Fitzsimmons was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.
An Erie County court later ruled that George Fitzsimmons “is exculpated from legal liability” for the deaths and could inherit all the money from his parents’ estate.
In 1973, after Fitzsimmons had inherited his parents’ estate and been released from a mental hospital, he killed his elderly aunt and uncle in the Pennsylvania village of Roulette.
This time, Fitzsimmons was convicted of the murders, and sentenced to life in prison. He died in prison in 1999.
Heartbroken family
Humphries’ mother and other family members say they are still heartbroken over her death more than two years ago.
They described the graduate of D’Youville and Medaille colleges as a devoted mother and hard worker who earned a master’s degree in business and had a good job as a customer service and logistics representative at Rich Products.
“Everyone who came into contact with Kayla loved her. She was totally devoted to her kids,” said Marcus Humphries, one of Kayla’s two younger brothers. “I never once met anyone who didn’t like that girl. When we had her wake, we had to extend it two hours because there were people lined up out the door all the way to the street.”
Humphries was not the only person Moore killed that night. About two hours after killing his 30-year-old fiancée, police said, Moore walked up to an old friend – rap singer Darrell Bailey, 31 – and shot him outside a mini-mart store on Bailey Avenue.
When Judge Christopher J. Burns ruled last December that Moore was not criminally responsible for the two deaths due to mental disease, he noted that two psychiatrists who examined Moore found him to be showing at least two signs of being a schizophrenic – delusions and withdrawal from society.
The two psychiatrists said that the delusions included Moore’s belief that Humphries was cheating on him, that she had taken out a life insurance policy on him and planned to kill him, and that Bailey had refused to let Moore rap on an album he made.
Moore claimed that radio and television stations were broadcasting messages telling him what to do, Burns noted.
Prosecutors argued during the trial that Moore fully understood the consequences of his actions on the night he killed Humphries and Bailey. They also portrayed Moore as a cocaine user and dealer.
Family’s fear
Marcus Humphries said Moore was “a street hustler, a guy who was all about making money.”
He said he is convinced that Moore’s behavior before and after the two slayings is part of a scheme to fake mental illness and avoid prison time.
“I think he hopes to get out of a mental hospital in a couple of years, and then get back out on the street with all this insurance money,” Marcus Humphries said of Moore.
Moore’s defense attorney at the trial, Andrew C. LoTempio, disagrees. He said Burns made the right call in determining that Moore was not criminally responsible for the murders.
“I represented Michael Moore on various petty crimes for ten years before the killings. I watched his mental deterioration over those years,” LoTempio said. “I do believe he was schizophrenic when he killed these people. He was acting bizarrely, saying he was getting commands from TV stations.”
Two cases, two courts
The two cases involving Humphries’ insurance money have been filed in federal court, where the matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott, and with Erie County Surrogate Judge Barbara Howe. Both judges appointed Connors to represent Moore’s interest in the cases.
Howe will meet with all parties Thursday, but no decisions are expected in the near future.
Robinson, the attorney for the estate, said he hopes a settlement can be reached without either case going to trial.
Why did Humphries name Moore as the only beneficiary of her insurance policies?
“Her mother believes that Kayla did it because she was convinced that, if she were to die, Michael Moore would use that money for the benefit of the children,” Robinson said.
