Matter of Neilson, 19 N.Y.2d 77 (1967)
In the absence of explicit language in a will or trust instrument to the contrary, an adopted child has the same inheritance rights as a natural child, and should be treated equally as “issue” of the parent, based on New York’s public policy.
Summary
This case concerns the inheritance rights of an adopted child versus a natural child under a trust established by a will. The testator’s will created trusts for his children, with the principal to be distributed to their surviving issue. One of the testator’s children, Mary Park Neilson, had a son who predeceased her, leaving a natural daughter and an adopted son. The Surrogate ruled that only the natural daughter could inherit. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the adopted child should be treated equally with the natural child as “issue” under the will, unless the will explicitly excludes adopted children. The court emphasized the strong public policy of New York to treat adopted and natural children alike.
Facts
The testator died in 1909, creating trusts for his surviving children, with the principal to be distributed to their surviving issue upon their death.
Mary Park Neilson, one of the testator’s children and a trust beneficiary, died in 1961.
Raymond P.R. Neilson, Jr., Mary’s son, predeceased her; he had a natural daughter, Anne Neilson Conrad, and an adopted son, Raymond P.R. Neilson, III.
The dispute arose over the distribution of the trust principal that would have gone to Raymond P.R. Neilson, Jr., had he survived Mary.
Procedural History
The Surrogate’s Court ruled that the natural child, Anne Neilson Conrad, was entitled to the entire share of the trust principal, excluding the adopted child, Raymond P.R. Neilson, III.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Surrogate’s Court’s decision.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether, under the terms of a will directing distribution to “issue,” an adopted child has the same rights as a natural child to inherit, absent explicit language in the will excluding adopted children?
Holding
Yes, because in the absence of an explicit purpose stated in the will or a trust instrument to exclude an adopted child, he must be deemed included whether the word “heir,” “child,” “issue,” or other generic term expressing the parent-child relationship is used.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized New York’s long-standing public policy of treating adopted and natural children equally, as codified in the Domestic Relations Law. The court stated that the statute mandates that a foster child “shall have all the rights” of the relation of “parent and child.” This means that both the natural child and the adopted child must be treated as “his issue” within the terms of the will.
The court addressed a precautionary addendum to the statute, which stated that an adopted child should not be considered the child of the foster parent “so as to defeat the rights” of remaindermen if the foster parent died without heirs. However, the court clarified that this addendum was intended to prevent adoption from being used to cut off remainders, not to discriminate between natural and adopted children when both exist.
The court distinguished New York Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Viele, 161 N.Y. 11, noting that it predated the 1887 statute that directed legal equality between children. It cited Matter of Horn, 256 N.Y. 294, stating the “only instance” in which an adopted child is not deemed the child of the parent is where future estates “may be cut off” by “such adoption.”
The court referenced the Second Report of the Temporary State Commission on the Modernization, Revision and Simplification of the Law of Estates, which led to more explicit language in the statute applicable to future instruments.
Quoting from Matter of Upjohn, 304 N.Y. 366, the court noted that the knowledge by the testator of the adoption justifies the conclusion that he intended to treat such a child as issue of the beneficiary, against the backdrop of the general state policy to treat adopted and natural children alike. The court concluded that absent an explicit purpose stated in the will or trust instrument to exclude an adopted child, they should be deemed included as “issue.”