Marcia E. Roll v. Russell L. Newhall
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 116, 888 N.W.2d 422 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A testamentary gift to a beneficiary identified by both name and a class designation (e.g., “my children”) is considered an individual gift, not a class gift, unless there is clear evidence of the testator’s contrary intent. Therefore, an adult beneficiary's subsequent adoption out of their biological family does not preclude them from inheriting under such a will.
Facts:
- Marrian Newhall executed her last will and testament in 2006.
- Article II of Marrian’s will devised the residue of her property, if her husband did not survive her, "to my children, RUSSELL L. NEWHALL and MARCIA E. ROLL, share and share alike," and further stated, "All references to child or children shall include all children born to or adopted by me after the date this Will is executed."
- Marrian’s will also named Russell Newhall and Marcia Roll as co-executors.
- In 2007, Russell Newhall was adopted as an adult by his paternal aunt, Janice Anway, reportedly to avoid Iowa's inheritance tax on Anway's estate.
- Marrian Newhall passed away in August 2014, and her husband had predeceased her.
- At the time of Marrian’s death, Russell was legally her nephew due to the adoption, but remained her biological son.
Procedural Posture:
- Marcia Roll, as executor and a beneficiary of Marrian’s estate, filed an action in the Iowa District Court for Butler County seeking a declaratory judgment that Russell Newhall’s adoption precluded him from inheriting under Marrian’s will.
- Russell Newhall filed an answer asserting that his adoption did not change his relationship with his parents and that Marrian’s intent for him to inherit was clearly expressed in her will.
- In August 2015, Marcia Roll and Russell Newhall filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment, concluding that Russell could inherit under the terms of Marrian’s will despite the adoption because he was clearly named as an individual under the will’s provisions and no statute barred him from recovering.
- Marcia Roll appealed the district court’s ruling to the Iowa 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:
Does an adult beneficiary's adoption out of their biological family, occurring after the execution of a will, preclude them from inheriting under a provision of the will that identifies them both by name and by a class designation?
Opinions:
Majority - Hecht, Justice
No, an adult beneficiary's adoption out of their biological family does not preclude them from inheriting under a will provision that identifies them both by name and by a class designation, because such a gift is an individual gift in the absence of a testator's clear contrary intent. The court acknowledged that Russell’s adult adoption terminated his legal parent-child relationship with Marrian for purposes of intestate succession, but noted this was a case of testate succession, requiring interpretation of Marrian's will. Applying the cardinal rule of will construction—to ascertain the testator's intent—the court found the provision "to my children, RUSSELL L. NEWHALL and MARCIA E. ROLL" to be ambiguous because it described beneficiaries as both members of a class and as individuals. Relying on established Iowa caselaw (In re Estate of Carter and Friederichs v. Friederichs), the court reaffirmed the rule that a bequest identifying beneficiaries by name and by class is a gift to individuals, with the class description serving primarily as identification, creating a prima facie intent for an individual gift. The court found no evidence in the will or surrounding circumstances to establish Marrian's contrary intent to exclude a named biological child who was subsequently adopted out. The court rejected Marcia's arguments that the term 'children' would be rendered meaningless, explaining its utility for identification, and dismissed public policy concerns, stating that the testamentary gift was a common one from a mother to her biological child and Iowa's public policy does not prevent testators from leaving property to biological children adopted away, particularly where legislative action only addresses intestate succession.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle of testamentary freedom and the primacy of the testator's intent in Iowa will construction. It solidifies the rule that specific naming of beneficiaries generally overrides general class descriptions, even when the legal relationship defining the class changes. The ruling clarifies that statutory provisions related to adoption and intestate succession do not automatically extend to defeat specific bequests in a valid will, absent express language in the will or a strong, clearly articulated public policy. This case serves as a precedent affirming the durable nature of individual gifts specified in a will, providing greater certainty for named beneficiaries regardless of subsequent changes in their legal family status.
