Henson v. Jarmon

Court of Appeals of Texas
758 S.W.2d 368, 1988 WL 90287, 1988 Tex. App. LEXIS 2252 (1988)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Amendments to probate statutes allowing illegitimate children to establish heirship via biological paternity must be applied retroactively to pending cases where the estate is undistributed, as denying such application violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts:

LePort Walton died intestate (without a will) in Tyler, Texas, on October 20, 1986, at the age of 72.
Walton had been married twice, but neither marriage produced children, and he was single at the time of his death.
Walton was survived by collateral relatives, including two brothers, six sisters, two nephews, and one niece.
LePaula Long Jarmon and Nikita Denise Rogers claimed to be Walton's biological daughters born out of wedlock.
At the time of Walton's death, Texas law provided limited methods for illegitimate children to inherit, none of which applied to Jarmon or Rogers.
On September 1, 1987, an amendment to Section 42(b) of the Texas Probate Code became effective, adding a new method for illegitimate children to inherit by proving biological paternity.
The estate of LePort Walton had not yet been distributed when Jarmon and Rogers sought to establish their rights under the new law.

Procedural Posture:

Two of the decedent's sisters were appointed Co-Temporary Administratrices of the estate in the trial court.
Jarmon and Rogers filed an application in the trial court to declare heirship.
The case proceeded to a jury trial where special issues were submitted regarding biological paternity.
The jury found by clear and convincing evidence that both Jarmon and Rogers were the biological daughters of the decedent.
The trial court entered judgment declaring Jarmon and Rogers the sole heirs, each entitled to 50% of the estate.
The decedent's siblings, nephews, and niece (the intestate heirs) filed an appeal with this Court of Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Does the 1987 amendment to the Texas Probate Code, which allows illegitimate children to inherit by proving biological paternity, apply retroactively to an estate where the decedent died before the amendment's effective date but the estate remained undistributed?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Bill Bass

Yes. The Court affirms the trial court's decision, holding that the statutory amendment must be applied retroactively to avoid constitutional violations. Although statutes generally operate prospectively, the Court relies on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Campbell to determine that distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate children is unconstitutional unless there is a substantial state interest. The Court finds that the state's interest in the 'orderly administration of estates' is not compromised here because the daughters filed their claim shortly after death and before any distribution of assets occurred. Consequently, barring the daughters from proving paternity based solely on the date of their father's death would unjustifiably deprive them of equal treatment protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Analysis:

This case illustrates the tension between statutory interpretation (presumption against retroactivity) and constitutional mandates (Equal Protection). The court strictly adheres to U.S. Supreme Court precedents (Trimble and Reed) to dismantle barriers facing children born out of wedlock. The decision clarifies that 'vested rights' of other heirs cannot override the constitutional rights of illegitimate children when the practical reasons for barring such claims (like the finality of estate distribution) are absent. It establishes that the timing of death is less critical than the status of the estate's distribution when determining heirship rights.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Henson v. Jarmon (1988)

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