Estate of Dye
Decision Date | 09 October 2001 |
Docket Number | No. C035887.,C035887. |
Citation | 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 362,92 Cal.App.4th 966 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | ESTATE of Haskell J. DYE, Deceased. Scott T. Dye, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Phillip Joe Battles et al. Objectors and Respondents. |
This case illustrates the danger of using preprinted wills. Decedent Haskell J. Dye had two natural sons who were adopted away (with his consent) by his first wife's new husband (Arthur Battles) in 1959. Under the law at that time, this cut off their right to inherit from him. The law was changed, effective 1985, to permit some adopted-out children to inherit from their natural parents. In 1989 decedent and his second wife Eleanor signed reciprocal form wills, leaving their property to each other. Eleanor died in January, 1999. Decedent died on June 17, 1999.
Scott Dye, Eleanor's son who had been adopted by decedent, petitioned to probate decedent's estate. Phillip Joe Battles, one of decedent's adopted away natural sons, and some of the issue of the deceased adopted away son (Jimmie Dean Battles) filed an objection, seeking to share in decedent's estate. The trial court granted their heirship petition and Scott filed a notice of appeal. The appeal lies. (Prob. Code, § 1303, subd. (g); further unspecified references are to this code.) We first conclude the new law enables the objectors to take a share of the decedent's estate. We also conclude an antilapse statute does not apply because a person's spouse is not his or her "kindred," as defined. We shall affirm.
Adoption began with Roman law, and exists by statutes in derogation of common law. (Estate of Renton (1892) 3 Coffey's Prob. Dec. 519, 524-526.) Thus, at first, courts were hostile to adoption. (See Ex Parte Clark (1891) 87 Cal. 638, 641, 25 P. 967 [], In re Newman (1927) 88 Cal.App. 186, 189, 262 P. 1112, disapproved by Adoption of Barnett (1960) 54 Cal.2d 370, 377, 6 Cal.Rptr. 562, 354 P.2d 18.) This is no longer true. (San Diego County Dept. of Pub. Welfare v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 1, 16, 101 Cal.Rptr. 541, 496 P.2d 453; Tyler v. Children's Home Society (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 511, 529, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 291 [ ].) But because it is based on statutes displacing the common law, adoption "does not deprive [an adoptee] of his right to inherit from his relatives by blood, unless the statute provides otherwise."
Adoption creates a legal relationship of parent and child, which (Estate ofJobson (1912) 164 Cal. 312, 316-317, 128 P. 938.) The California Supreme Court reasoned, (Id at p. 317,128 P. 938.)
But this is not the only plausible view. A dissenting opinion by two justices in the case just quoted (consistent with Judge Coffey's views) would have held the natural parent remains as a default, in the event the adoption fails, as by death of the adopting parent:
Echoing this disagreement, the Legislature has changed its view on the effect of an adoption on the blood relationship.
For our purposes, it suffices to begin with former section 257 as it read in 1959, after a 1955 amendment: (Stats. 1955, ch. 1478, § 1, p. 2690.) This legislation provided that the adopted child had rights of inheritance in and only in the estate of the adoptive parents.
The parties agree that when decedent's sons were adopted by their mother's new husband, this statute cut off their rights to inherit under the intestacy laws at that time. (See Estate of Hart (1984) 165 Cal. App.3d 392, 394, fn. 1, 209 Cal.Rptr. 272.)
This rule was changed by a new statute, effective January 1, 1985, which has gone through various amendments. (Former § 6408 Stats.1983, ch. 842, §§ 19, 55, pp. 3024, 3083.) In 1993 the language of the present section 6451 was adopted. (Stats. 1993, ch. 529, § 5, p. 2715.) Now an adoption severs the blood relationship (§ 6451, subd. (a).) California is not alone in providing by statute for adopted-out children to inherit from their natural parents when the adoption was by a stepparent. (See, e.g., Raley v. Spikes (Ala.1993) 614 So.2d 1017; Estate of Carlson (Minn.App. 1990) 457 N.W.2d 789.)
Before Jimmie Dean and Phillip Joe were adopted out, decedent lived with them, and their adoption was by the new husband of their mother, decedent's former wife. They satisfy the new exception to the statute. (Cf. Estate of Carlson, supra, 457 N.W.2d 789 [ ].)
In 1989, after the change in the law, decedent and Eleanor wrote their wills. Eleanor died in 1999, leaving her property to decedent. He died later in 1999, leaving everything to Eleanor. Therefore—apart from an antilapse claim discussed below— when he died, his estate lapsed.
Where, as here, the decedent has no surviving spouse, the estate passes "To the issue of the decedent, the issue taking equally if they are all of the same degree of kinship to the decedent, but if of unequal degree those of more remote degree take in the manner provided in Section 240." (§ 6402, subd. (a).) Section 240 provides for distribution per stirpes. (See Estate of Careaga (1964) 61 Cal.2d 471, 476, 39 Cal.Rptr. 215, 393 P.2d 415.)
Application of these statutes allows the objectors to inherit part of the estate, which, based on the evidence would be divided into thirds: One-third to Scott (an adopted-in son of the decedent); one-third to Phillip Joe (an adopted-out son who satisfies the new statute) and one-third to the heirs of Jimmie Dean (also an adoptedout son who satisfies the new statute). (See § 6402.) The trial court so held.
Scott asserts in his brief that decedent and Eleanor did not consult a lawyer and thought he was their only lawful heir, and that decedent never intended to benefit objectors, "some of whom he never even met." Scott urges the case should be remanded so he can introduce evidence to establish decedent's intention regarding the adopted-out children.
Assuming Scott accurately sets forth decedent's wishes, decedent could have expressed such intention by inserting into the will "I...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kaufman & Broad v. Performance Plastering
... ... California State Government Organization and Economy Commission ( Department of Personnel Administration v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 155, 183, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 714.) ... Law Revision Commission ( Estate of Dye (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 966, 985, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 362; Estate of Della Sala (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 463, 469, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 569; Estate of Reeves (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 651, 656, 284 Cal.Rptr. 650; In re Marriage of Schenck (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1474, 1480, fn. 2, 279 Cal.Rptr. 651 ... ...
-
Kaufman & Broad v. Performance Plastering
... ... California State Government Organization and Economy Commission ( Department of Personnel Administration v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 155, 183, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 714.) ... Law Revision Commission ( Estate of Dye (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 966, 985, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 362; Estate of Della Sala (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 463, 469, 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 569; Estate of Reeves (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 651, 656, 284 Cal.Rptr. 650; In re Marriage of Schenck (1991) 228 Cal. App.3d 1474, 1480, fn. 2, 279 Cal.Rptr. 651) ... ...
-
Alameda Cnty. Flood Control v. Dep't of Water Res.
... ... One must ask what meanings are proffered and examine their plausibility in light of the language. A party attacking a meaning succeeds only if the attacker can propose an alternative, plausible, candidate of meaning.” ( Estate of Dye (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 966, 976, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 362 ( Dye ).) Importantly, “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.” (Civ.Code, § 1638.) “Courts will not adopt a strained ... ...
-
Brown v. Labow
... ... BROWN, and ninety percent (90%) thereof allocated and distributed to ROSS G. BROWN. In the event either such beneficiary shall not survive to the date of distribution, such beneficiary's share shall be added to the residue of the Trust Estate and distributed pursuant to Paragraph 6.02 below." ... On July 25, 1996, Ross filed a petition for the appointment of a conservator of the person and estate of Rubin. On September 9, 1996, Ms. Labow was appointed conservator of Rubin's person and estate. On October 16, 1996, Ms ... ...
-
Realities of the Trust Situs Marketplace
...§ 21115; Newman v Wells Fargo Bank (1996) 14 Cal.4th 126 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 926 P.2d 969]. Note dicta, however, in Estate of Dye (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 966.Further, divorce of a stepchild's parent may have unpredictable results from state to state on the status of the stepchild as a member o......
-
The Dead Hand Writes - And, Having Writ, Moves On: the Increasing Prevalence of No Contest Litigation in California
...order to achieve that objective").9. Probate Code § 21102(c); Ike v. Doolittle (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 51; but see Estate of Dye (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 966, for the limits of the admissibility of extrinsic evidence.10. Code of Civil Procedure § 1856(e), (h).11. Burch v. George (1994) 7 Cal.4th......
-
2018 Legislation: from Transfer on Death Deeds to Decanting, What a Year, What a Year!
...the spouse's heirs, instead of to the transferor's heirs.This bill is intended to codify the ruling in the case of Estate of Dye (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 966. There, a husband executed a will leaving everything to his wife, who predeceased him. The husband died, leaving two natural sons and hi......
-
Make No Mistake—estate of Duke Allows Reformation of Unambiguous Wills
...Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 882, 888 (Citations omitted).8. Estate of Duke, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 882.9. Estate of Dye (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 966, 976.10. Estate of Russell (1968) 69 Cal.2d 200, 207.11. Estate of Duke, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 882; see also Estate of Russell, supra, 69 Cal......