In re Estate of Locke
813 A.2d 1172, 148 N.H. 754, 2002 N.H. LEXIS 211 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a decedent dies intestate and is survived by descendants of both paternal and maternal grandparents, the estate is first divided into two equal halves for each line. The distribution of each half is then determined independently, and a statutory limitation on representation among remote collaterals does not bar an entire line from inheriting simply because its members are of a more remote degree of kinship than the members of the other line.
Facts:
- Geraldine M. Locke died intestate on September 23, 1999.
- At the time of her death, Locke had no surviving spouse, children, siblings, parents, or grandparents.
- Locke's nearest surviving relatives on her maternal side were Jean Barber and Marion Hayes, both of whom were her first cousins (fourth degree of kinship).
- Locke's nearest surviving relatives on her paternal side were Ann Stackpole de Pasquale, Carl Stackpole, Frank Stackpole, and Raelene E. Davis Hale, all of whom were her first cousins once removed (fifth degree of kinship).
Procedural Posture:
- The administratrix of Geraldine M. Locke's estate filed a petition for determination of heirs in the Merrimack County Probate Court (court of first instance).
- The probate court ruled that the estate should be divided in half, with the maternal first cousins (Barber and Hayes) sharing one half and the paternal first cousins once removed (Stackpole et al.) sharing the other half.
- Jean Barber and Marion Hayes (appellants) appealed the probate court's decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under New Hampshire's intestacy statutes, when a decedent's closest surviving relatives are first cousins (fourth degree) on the maternal side and first cousins once removed (fifth degree) on the paternal side, does the statutory bar on representation beyond the fourth degree (RSA 561:3) prevent the paternal relatives from inheriting their half of the estate as prescribed by RSA 561:1, II(d)?
Opinions:
Majority - Broderick, J.
No. The statutory bar on representation does not prevent the first cousins once removed from inheriting their prescribed half of the estate. The plain language of RSA 561:1, II(d) mandates a two-step process: first, the estate must be divided into equal paternal and maternal halves. Second, each half must be distributed independently to the issue on that respective side. The court reasoned that the concept of 'representation' only applies within a single half if the descendants on that side are of unequal degrees. Here, all maternal heirs are of the same degree (fourth), and all paternal heirs are of the same degree (fifth), so they each take their share in their own right ('per capita'), not by representation. The bar in RSA 561:3 is therefore not implicated, as the court will not compare the degrees of kinship between the two separate family lines after the initial split.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the mechanics of New Hampshire's parentelic system of intestate succession, emphasizing the primacy of dividing the estate between maternal and paternal lines before determining individual shares. It establishes that the statutory limitation on representation among collaterals does not function as a 'closest-in-degree' rule that would disinherit an entire family line. This precedent solidifies the independence of the two halves in the distribution scheme, ensuring both sides of a decedent's family are provided for, even if the surviving relatives on one side are a generation more remote than on the other.
