In Re Estates of Donnelly
60 A.L.R. 3d 620, 81 Wash. 2d 430, 502 P.2d 1163 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute providing that an adopted child is not an heir of their natural parents also severs the child's right to inherit from natural grandparents through intestate succession. The legislative intent to fully integrate an adopted child into the adoptive family, providing a "fresh start," overrides a literal interpretation of the term "parents" and breaks the chain of inheritance from the natural bloodline.
Facts:
- John J. and Lily Donnelly had two children, a son, John J. Donnelly, Jr., and a daughter, Kathleen M. Kelly.
- John J. Donnelly, Jr. had one child, Jean Louise Donnelly, on October 28, 1945.
- Jean Louise's father, John J. Donnelly, Jr., died on July 9, 1946.
- Jean Louise's mother later remarried, and on August 11, 1948, Jean Louise was adopted by her stepfather, Richard Roger Hansen.
- Lily Donnelly, the grandmother, died in 1964, leaving her entire estate to her husband, John J. Donnelly, Sr.
- John J. Donnelly, Sr., the grandfather, died on September 15, 1970.
- His will, written in 1932, left his entire estate to his wife, who had predeceased him, and made no other provisions, causing his estate to pass through the laws of intestacy.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathleen M. Kelly, as administratrix, petitioned the trial court to determine the heirs of her father's estate.
- The trial court ruled that both Kathleen M. Kelly and her niece, Jean Louise Iverson, were legal heirs, each entitled to a one-half share of the estate.
- Kathleen M. Kelly, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Kathleen M. Kelly, as petitioner, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington, which granted review.
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 a statute stating that an adopted child is not an heir of their natural parents for purposes of intestate succession also sever the child's right to inherit from their natural grandparents?
Opinions:
Majority - Neill, J.
Yes. A statute that severs an adopted child's right to inherit from a natural parent also severs the right to inherit from a natural grandparent. The court reasoned that the legislative purpose of adoption statutes is to give the adopted child a 'fresh start' by fully integrating them into the new adoptive family and severing all ties with the natural bloodline for inheritance purposes. Reading the probate statute (RCW 11.04.085) in conjunction with the adoption statute (RCW 26.32.140) shows a clear intent to transfer all inheritance rights from the natural family to the adoptive family. Allowing an adopted child to inherit 'through' a deceased natural parent from a natural grandparent would be inconsistent with this broad legislative policy, which should prevail over a strict, literal interpretation of the word 'parents'. The court concluded that Jean Louise cannot inherit from her natural grandfather.
Dissenting - Hale, J.
No. A statute barring inheritance from natural 'parents' does not extend to natural 'grandparents' unless explicitly stated. The dissent argued for a strict interpretation of the statute, which only mentions 'parents.' The legislature could have used broader terms like 'kin' if it intended to disinherit the child from all natural relatives. In this specific case, an in-family adoption where the child continued living with her natural mother, the 'fresh start' policy is not logically served by severing the relationship with her grandfather. The majority's interpretation creates an unreasonable result and goes beyond the plain language of the statute. Jean Louise should be able to inherit from her grandfather.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that adoption creates a complete legal transfer of a child from one family to another for the purposes of intestate succession. By favoring a broad, policy-based interpretation over a strict textual reading, the court established that the 'fresh start' goal of adoption law requires severing the entire natural bloodline, not just the parent-child relationship. This ruling provides a clear, bright-line rule for probate courts, but it also signals that courts may look to the overarching spirit of a legislative scheme, rather than isolated words, to resolve statutory ambiguities in family law and probate matters.
