Wehsener v. Jernigan

• Decision Date: 28 December 2022
• Docket Number: D079623
• Citation: 86 Cal.App.5th 1311,302 Cal.Rptr.3d 916
• Parties: Shannon WEHSENER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Wendy JERNIGAN, Objector and Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

86 Cal.App.5th 1311

302 Cal.Rptr.3d 916

Shannon WEHSENER, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Wendy JERNIGAN, Objector and Respondent.

D079623

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed December 28, 2022

Hughes & Pizzuto, Anne M. Rudolph and Ralph E. Hughes, San Diego, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Beamer, Lauth, Steinley & Bond and Phillip A. Bond for Objector and Respondent.

DO, J.

INTRODUCTION

In this case, we must decide whether Judith Scherber (Judy)¹ is an intestate heir of Loch David Crane (Decedent), who died in 2018 while domiciled in San Diego County. Judy's petition is based on her relationship with Charles Bloodgood (Charles). In 1951, Charles and his wife Frances Bloodgood (Frances) took two-year-old Judy into their home after she was abandoned by her birth parents, and for the duration of their lifetimes, held Judy out as their own child while domiciled in Indiana.

Probate Code ² section 6453 provides the rules for determining who is a "natural parent" for purposes of intestate succession, and it includes a presumed parent-child relationship under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) ( Fam. Code, § 7600 et seq. ). ( § 6453, subd. (b)(2).) Applying California law to undisputed facts jointly submitted by the parties, the probate court found Judy was the presumed natural child of Charles under the UPA; that Shannon Wehsener (Shannon), a first cousin of Decedent who had opposed Judy's petition, had failed to proffer any facts to rebut that presumption; and that Judy therefore was Decedent's heir through Charles, based on Charles openly holding her out as his own child during his lifetime.

On appeal, Shannon argues the probate court erred in applying California law to determine the existence of a natural parental relationship between Charles and Judy. Shannon argues the court instead should have applied Indiana law, where that relationship was effectuated. And unlike California, Indiana law does not recognize the existence of a natural parent and child relationship for purposes of determining heirship when a parent openly holds out a child as that parent's own. Shannon further argues that even if California law applies and Charles is the presumed natural parent of Judy, that presumption was rebutted purely on the basis of public policy.

Exercising independent review, we conclude California law applies in determining parentage between Judy and Charles for purposes of intestate succession. Based on the undisputed facts, we further conclude clear and convincing evidence supports the probate court's finding that Charles was the presumed natural parent of Judy under the UPA; that Shannon did not meet her burden to produce clear and convincing evidence to rebut that presumption; and that the presumption cannot be rebutted purely on the grounds of public policy. We thus affirm the probate court's order that Judy, through Charles, is an intestate heir of Decedent.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Stipulated Facts

The probate court decided the issues on appeal based upon the parties’ stipulation of the following 17 undisputed facts:

"1. The Decedent died on April 25, 2018, a resident of San Diego County, California, leaving assets to be administered in San Diego County.

"2. The Decedent was not survived by spouse, issue, parents, issue [of] parents, or grandparents. Accordingly, the Decedent's intestate heirs are the issue of his grandparents.

"3. [Shannon] is the Decedent's sole first cousin on his paternal side.

"4. Shannon is the sole person entitled to share in any portion of the estate passing by intestacy as issue of the Decedent's paternal grandparents.

"5. [Charles] was the adopted brother of the Decedent's mother, CLARE BLOODGOOD CRANE. Charles was a resident of Indiana and died on July 14, 1993, in Indiana.

"6. Judy was born on April 6, 1949. Her biological parents were Dorothy Sue Davenport and Henry Lee Hayden. Judy's biological mother abandoned her and her biological father when Judy was an infant. Judy lived with her biological father until she was two years old.

"7. When Judy was two years old, Judy's biological father dropped her off with Charles and [Frances], who were then living in Kentucky, and asked them to babysit. Judy's biological father never returned. Judy continued to live in the home of Charles and Frances for the duration of her childhood.

"8. When Judy was not more than eleven years old, Charles, Frances, and Judy moved to Indiana. When Charles, Frances, and Judy moved to Indiana, Charles and Frances openly held Judy out to be their daughter. School records from Indiana show that Judy was registered with the last name ‘Bloodgood[,’] and as a child of Charles and Frances. Charles and Frances continued to hold Judy out as their daughter for the remainder of their lifetimes. The Last Will and Testament of Charles E. Bloodgood named Judy as Charles[’s] daughter.

"9. Judy is not Charles[’s] or his wife's biological child, and there is no evidence she was legally adopted. Thus, any purported relationship between Charles and Judy is based solely upon Charles having taken Judy into his home and having held Judy out as his daughter. Charles and Frances knew that Judy was the biological child of another couple.

"10. Although Charles and Frances took Judy into their home in Kentucky, there is no evidence that Charles ever held Judy out as his child until they moved to Indiana. Thus, any purported parent-child relationship between Charles and Judy is based upon Charles having taken Judy into his home and having held Judy out as his daughter, and such purported relationship was established and maintained in Indiana.

"11. Because of his own negative experience in the foster care system, Charles chose not to initiate any action to legally adopt Judy. There is no evidence that there was any legal barrier preventing Charles from legally adopting Judy during his lifetime.

"12. Charles and Judy never lived in California.

"13. There is no evidence that Judy and the Decedent ever met.

"14. There is no evidence that Charles and the Decedent ever met.

"15. Shannon and the Decedent had a close relationship from childhood.

"16. Judy learned of the Decedent's death after being contacted by an heir search company.

"17. There is no evidence that Judy had any interaction or relationship with her biological parents after they left her in Charles[’s] custody at age [two], with the exception of a single meeting between Judy and her biological father when Judy was 18 years old."

II. Procedural History and Additional Facts

On June 27, 2018, Shannon filed a petition for letters of administration to administer the estate (Estate) of Decedent (Petition for Letters of Administration). The petition asserted Decedent died intestate. All known heirs were served with notice of the petition and notice was also published in a newspaper of general circulation. Judy received notice of the petition in September 2018.

On November 13, 2018, the probate court appointed Shannon administrator of the Estate. Shortly thereafter, the court issued Shannon letters of administration with "full authority" to administer the Estate.

On January 8, 2020, Shannon filed her "First and Final Report of Personal Representative [and] Petition for Final Distribution" (Petition for Final Distribution). (Some capitalization omitted.) Shannon asserted distribution of the Estate should be made by intestate succession and that she was Decedent's sole heir.

On February 21, 2020, Judy (through her Indiana estate's personal representative) filed her "Response and Objection" to the Petition for Final Distribution (Response), claiming she also qualified as an heir of Decedent as the "natural (but not biological) child" of Charles; that Charles was the brother of Clare Bloodgood Crane, Decedent's mother; that Clare and Charles were the children of David W. Bloodgood and Elinor Bloodgood, maternal grandparents of Decedent; and therefore, that Judy, through Charles, was entitled to one-half of Decedent's Estate as issue of Decedent's maternal grandparents.

In addition to the undisputed facts in the parties’ stipulation (previously summarized), Judy's Response also included copies of her 1968 marriage certificate, identifying Frances and Charles as her parents; and Judy's January 2022 death certificate, issued by the Indiana State Department of Health, which also identified Frances and Charles as her parents.

On February 2, 2021, Shannon filed a petition for probate of will (Petition for Probate) along with a request to be appointed administrator. In the Petition for Probate, Shannon stated she found a holographic will dated June 1, 2007 (purported will) in Decedent's home, after she had filed the Petitions for Letters of Administration. One of the purported beneficiaries under the will, Save Our Heritage Organisation, also filed a petition for probate. Decedent's purported will has not been admitted to probate.

On May 4, 2021, the probate court bifurcated the issue of Judy's heirship claim from the remaining issues in the case and continued the petitions for probate of Decedent's purported will.

On July 9, 2021, Judy and Shannon submitted their stipulation of undisputed facts and their respective trial briefs. The probate court heard oral argument on July 16 and took the matter under submission. On August 16, the court announced its ruling from the bench and that same day issued a minute order providing it had made "detailed findings on the record" in support of its decision that Judy is an intestate heir of Decedent.

In reaching its decision, the probate court found (1) California law applied in determining, for purposes of intestate succession, the legal status of the relationship between Charles and Judy; (2) Charles was the presumed natural parent of Judy as a result of him openly holding her out as his own child during his lifetime; and (3) Shannon proffered "no facts" to rebut the presumption. Shannon timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

I. California Law Governs the Determination of...