Brown v. Johnson

District Court of Appeal of Florida
425 So. 2d 23, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22250 (1982)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

To establish paternity for intestate succession after the death of a putative father, particularly when seeking to overcome the presumption of legitimacy arising from birth during wedlock, the evidence must be clear, strong, and unequivocal.

Facts:

Ethel Williams was married to Columbus Johner.
During this marriage, Ethel gave birth to a daughter named Lillian Thomas Carthon.
Lillian subsequently had two children, Delores Thomas Brown and Adolphus Thomas, Jr.
Vanchester Broxton, a man other than Columbus Johner, wrote a letter to Delores addressing her as his "Little Grand Daughter."
Lillian, Ethel, and Vanchester Broxton all passed away.
Vanchester Broxton died intestate (without a will).
Delores and Adolphus claimed that Vanchester was Lillian's biological father, making them his lineal descendants entitled to his estate.
Witnesses provided conflicting testimony regarding whether Vanchester was present in the area at the time of Lillian's conception.

Procedural Posture:

Delores Thomas Brown and Adolphus Thomas, Jr. filed a claim in the probate court to share in the intestate estate of Vanchester Broxton.
The probate court conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding the appellants' claim.
The probate court issued an order holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the claim and denied the appellants' right to inherit.
Delores and Adolphus appealed the probate court's order to the District Court of Appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a letter addressing a claimant as a "granddaughter," combined with conflicting oral testimony, sufficient to overcome the presumption of legitimacy and establish paternity for intestate succession purposes when the ancestor was born during a valid marriage to another man?

Opinions:

Majority - Hersey

No. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the evidence was insufficient to establish paternity. The court reasoned that the claimants faced a "double burden." First, because Lillian was born while her mother was married to Columbus Johner, she is presumed to be legitimate. Overcoming this presumption requires "clear and satisfactory" evidence. Second, establishing paternity after the death of a putative father requires evidence that is "clear, strong and unequivocal." The court found that the letter and the conflicting witness testimony failed to meet these rigorous standards. Although the court noted a significant legal question regarding whether descendants have standing to "bastardize" their ancestor for financial gain, the decision ultimately rested on the insufficiency of the evidence.

Analysis:

This case highlights the high evidentiary bar required to alter lines of succession based on paternity claims made after the alleged father's death. It reinforces the strong common law and statutory presumption of legitimacy—meaning a child born during a marriage is legally presumed to be the child of the husband. The decision suggests that informal acknowledgments, such as affectionate letters, are insufficient to overturn this presumption, especially when contradicted by the circumstances of birth. Furthermore, the court dicta regarding standing raises an important public policy concern: whether the law should permit descendants to legally declare their own ancestor illegitimate solely to acquire an inheritance.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Brown v. Johnson (1982)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"