Baker's Estate, In re

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: OTT; DONWORTH
• Citation: Baker's Estate, In re, 304 P.2d 1051, 49 Wn.2d 609 (Wash. 1956)
• Decision Date: 13 December 1956
• Docket Number: No. 33781
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE of Robert E. BAKER, Deceased. Louise F. WORTHEN, Respondent, v. Rosie WEAVER and Floretta Baker Clingman, Appellants.

Page 609

49 Wn.2d 609

304 P.2d 1051

In the Matter of the ESTATE of Robert E. BAKER, Deceased Louise F. WORTHEN, Respondent, v. Rosie WEAVER and Floretta Baker Clingman, Appellants.

No. 33781.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 2.

Dec. 13, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1957.

Acheson & Smith, Mark Litchman, Jr., Seattle, for appellants.

Wright, Booth & Beresford, Seattle, for respondent.

OTT, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order adjudicating the respondent to be an heir of the decedent, and pretermitted by the terms of decedent's will. The principal assignment of error is that the evidence failed to establish that respondent had met the requirements of RCW 11.04.080 [cf. Rem.Rev.Stat. § 1345] relating to inheritance.

We are asked to construe RCW 11.04.080 which reads in part:

'Every illegitimate child shall be considered as an heir of the person who has in any written document, signed in the presence of a competent witness, acknowledged himself to be the father of such child, * * *.' (Italics ours.)

The documentary evidence consisted of some thirty letters and postcards which the decedent, Robert E. Baker, had written and in which he had referred to the respondent as his daughter and to himself as her father. There was no evidence that any of these letters or postcards had been signed in the presence of a witness. A witness testified that, on one occasion, the decedent had shown her a letter addressed to the respondent (which was not written or signed in the presence of the witness) and signed, 'your darling father, Bob Baker.'

The court found that this letter, together with the decedent's display of it, constituted a substantial compliance with the statute and that, hence, respondent was an heir of the deceased.

In order for an illegimate child to establish heirship, the statute requires that there must be (1) a written document in which the signer acknowledges paternity of the child, and (2) that the document must be signed in the presence of a competent witness.

The wording of the statute is plain and unambiguous. We have held that, where there is no ambiguity in the statute, there is nothing for the court to interpret. Public Hospital District No. 2 of Okanogan County v. Taxpayers of Public Hospital District No. 2 of Okanogan County, 1954, 44 Wash.2d 623, 624, 269 P.2d 594, and case cited.

RCW 11.04.080 is an inheritance statute. Under the common law, and without such a statute, an illegitimate child has no right of inheritance from the estate of his father. Wasmund v. Wasmund, 1916, 90 Wash. 274, 156 P. 3. The legislature has determined that, in order for such a child to qualify for inheritance, there must be a written document acknowledging paternity, signed in the presence of a competent witness. There is nothing in the act to indicate that the legislature intended to permit an illegitimate child to inherit, where the acknowledgment of...