In re Wilson's Estate
| Decision Date | 28 May 1934 |
| Docket Number | 13528. |
| Citation | 33 P.2d 969,95 Colo. 159 |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re WILSON'S ESTATE. v. WILSON et al. WILSON et al. |
Error to Logan County Court; H. Lawrence Hinkley, Judge.
In the matter of the estate of Joseph Wilson, Sr. Judgment sustaining the right of Theodore Wilson, a minor, appearing by his guardian, to inherit both as deceased's adopted child and grandchild, and George Wilson and others bring error.
Affirmed.
J. V. Redmond and Deon Drefke, both of Sterling for plaintiffs in error.
Raymond L. Sauter and Raymond M. Sandhouse, both of Sterling, for defendants in error.
Joseph Wilson, a resident of Logan county, Colo died intestate, January 14, 1932. We are asked to determine the status of Theodore Wilson, a minor, as heir at law of the deceased. The material facts are not in dispute.
Theodore Wilson is the son and only child of Paul Wilson and Beulah Wilson. Paul Wilson was a son of Joseph Wilson, the intestate. In 1918, Paul Wilson died, and Beulah Wilson died in 1923. The child Theodore was, at its mother's request placed in the custody of the maternal grandmother in Denver where he was residing in February, 1923, when Joseph Wilson, the paternal grandfather, obtained in the county court of Logan county a decree of adoption of said child. The estate of Joseph Wilson is now in the course of administration in the county court of Logan county, wherein the heirship of deceased was determined by the court. On the hearing to determine such heirship, held April 4, 1933, the minor, Theodore Wilson, appeared by guardian duly appointed, and his attorneys, and claimed an interest in said estate, both as an adopted child of the deceased and as grandchild, and claimed the right to inherit in such dual capacity. The other heirs, now plaintiffs in error, appearing at the hearing, resisted the claim of said minor and contended that the adoption proceedings were void because of jurisdictional defects, but that if the adoption was held to be good, then he could inherit only in the capacity of adopted child. The court determined the matter in favor of the minor, and decreed that he could inherit in both capacities.
Plaintiffs in error, as heirs of deceased, insist that the adoption proceedings are void, first, because the court had no jurisdiction over the child, as it is shown on the face of the petition for adoption that it was living in Denver with its grandmother, and was not present in Logan county during the pendency of the adoption proceedings and was never Before the court. Second, because the court was without jurisdiction over the grandmother, the natural guardian of the child, there being no notice given her of the pending adoption proceedings. The grandmother as such temporary guardian, for a period of about 30 days, if she had the right to do so, made no objection, after learning of the adoption proceedings, but so far as the record discloses readily released control of the child to its adopted parents.
The adoption statutes of this state do not require notice to be given in cases like the one at bar, where both the natural parents are deceased and no guardian for the minor has been appointed. The court appointed a next friend for the minor, who appeared and consented to the adoption. Neither do the statutes require that the minor be a resident of the county where the adoption proceedings occurred.
The irregularities complained of, if any, would go only to the matter of custody and control, and would not affect the liability of the adopting parent, who sought and obtained a decree of adoption, and abided by its terms which made the adopted child a legal heir. The intestate never questioned the court's jurisdiction nor the validity of the adoption decree, and having thus considered and accepted the decree as binding on himself, his actions precluded his heirs from an attack on its validity. We hold that the right to contest such a decree is limited to the actual parties thereto. This conclusion seems to have support in the case of Dillingham v. Schmidt, 85 Colo. 28, 273 P. 21.
Having thus determined the status of the minor to be a child of deceased under a binding decree of adoption, with the right to inherit as such, we now come to the remaining question can the minor also inherit as a grandchild, or take the share of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hendrich v. Anderson
...v. Leeper, 347 Mo. 442, 147 S.W.2d 660, 663; In re Roderick's Estate, 158 Wash. 377, 291 P. 325, 326, 80 A.L.R. 1398; In re Wilson's Estate, 95 Colo. 159, 33 P.2d 969, 970. 16 See Smith v. Wells, 72 Ind.App. 29, 122 N.E. 334, 339; Felix v. Ancient Order of United Workmen, 31 Kan. 81, 1 P. 2......
-
Tilliski v. Martin (In re Tilliski's Estate)
...in other jurisdictions having the same or similar statutes that an adopted child may inherit from its natural parents. In re Wilson's Estate, 95 Colo. 159, 33 P.2d 969;Humphries v. Davis, 100 Ind. 274, 50 Am.Rep. 788;Patterson v. Browning, 146 Ind. 160, 44 N.E. 993; Wagner v. Varner, 50 Iow......
-
Kay's Estate, In re
...Estate, 1930, 158 Wash. 377, 291 P. 325, 326, 80 A.L.R. 1398; In re Sauer's Estate, 1934, 216 Wis. 289, 257 N.W. 28; In re Wilson's Estate, 1934, 95 Colo. 159, 33 P.2d 969; In re Tilliski's Estate, 1945, 390 Ill. 273, 61 N.E.2d 24; In re Benner's Estate, 1946, 109 Utah 172, 166 P.2d 257, 25......
-
Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Palms
...mother, and one share through their adoptive mother, respondents cite In re Bartram's Estate, 109 Kan. 87, 198 P. 192; In re Wilson's Estate, 95 Colo. 159, 33 P.2d 969; Wagner v. Varner, 50 Iowa 532, In re Benner's Estate, 109 Utah 172, 166 P.2d 257 and 28 Washington University Law Review 2......
-
PART 1 INTESTATE SUCCESSION
...The right to inherit is statutory and the statute which governs is embraced in §§ 15-11-101 to 15-11-113 inclusive. Wilson v. Wilson, 95 Colo. 159, 33 P.2d 969 (1934). The policy of our law is to have property descend to the heirs in the manner provided in this article. Danks v. Herrmann, 9......
-
GENERAL RULES
...The right to inherit is statutory and the statute which governs is embraced in §§ 15-11-101 to 15-11-113 inclusive. Wilson v. Wilson, 95 Colo. 159, 33 P.2d 969 (1934). The policy of our law is to have property descend to the heirs in the manner provided in this article. Danks v. Herrmann, 9......
-
SUBPART 1 GENERAL RULES
...The right to inherit is statutory and the statute which governs is embraced in §§ 15-11-101 to 15-11-113 inclusive. Wilson v. Wilson, 95 Colo. 159, 33 P.2d 969 (1934). The policy of our law is to have property descend to the heirs in the manner provided in this article. Danks v. Herrmann, 9......