In re Estate of Fay, 44 N.Y.2d 146 (1978)

New York’s EPTL 4-1.2, precluding inheritance by the paternal kindred of an illegitimate child absent a filiation order, does not violate equal protection guarantees.

Summary

This case concerns the inheritance rights of the paternal kindred of an illegitimate child. John P. Fay died intestate with a substantial estate. Violet Josephine Fay Buck claimed to be his half-sister through a common father. The Surrogate Court determined Fay was illegitimate and, therefore, Buck could not inherit under EPTL 4-1.2. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute, which restricts inheritance by paternal relatives of illegitimate children, does not violate equal protection, particularly when no filiation order exists establishing paternity.

Facts

John P. Fay died intestate in France, a U.S. citizen and New York domiciliary, leaving a $6 million estate. His birth certificate from Edinburgh stated he was illegitimate. A baptismal certificate, however, suggested his parents were married. Fay’s parents separated early in his life. He lived in a foster home and later became a seaman. Violet Josephine Fay Buck claimed to be Fay’s half-sister, the product of Fay’s father’s later marriage. Other claimants (Weatherall relatives) claimed through Fay’s mother’s bloodline.

Procedural History

The Surrogate Court sustained the objections of the Weatherall claimants, who claimed through the maternal line, and dismissed Buck’s claim because Fay was deemed illegitimate, precluding inheritance through his father. The Appellate Division affirmed the Surrogate’s decision. Buck appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that EPTL 4-1.2 was unconstitutional.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the decedent, John P. Fay, was illegitimate.
2. If so, whether EPTL 4-1.2(b), which precludes inheritance by the paternal kindred of an illegitimate child, violates equal protection.

Holding

1. No, because the Surrogate Court’s factual finding of illegitimacy, based on the birth certificate and other evidence, was affirmed by the Appellate Division and thus not reviewable by the Court of Appeals.
2. No, because the preclusion of inheritance by the paternal kindred of an illegitimate child, at least where there has been no order of filiation, is not violative of equal protection.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals addressed two issues: the determination of Fay’s legitimacy and the constitutionality of EPTL 4-1.2. On the first issue, the court noted the strong presumption of legitimacy but acknowledged it can be rebutted. Since the Surrogate Court’s finding of illegitimacy was a factual determination affirmed by the Appellate Division, it was not subject to review by the Court of Appeals.

Regarding the constitutionality of EPTL 4-1.2, the court applied a standard of review that is “less than strict scrutiny” but “not a toothless one.”. The court referenced its prior decision in Matter of Lalli, which upheld the constitutionality of EPTL 4-1.2(a)(2), requiring a filiation order for an illegitimate child to inherit from the father. The court reasoned that if an illegitimate child can be constitutionally precluded from inheriting from the father without a filiation order, then precluding inheritance by the paternal kindred of the illegitimate, absent such an order, is also constitutional.

The court emphasized the legislative intent behind EPTL 4-1.2, which was based on recommendations from the Bennett Commission on Estates. The Commission sought to avoid creating artificial family groups by excluding paternal kindred, who may not have knowledge of the child’s birth, unlike maternal kindred. The court stated, “It is merely a legislative judgment designed to ensure that only the true members of an illegitimate’s family are permitted to share in his or her estate.” The court also found the statute served a legitimate purpose in providing for the orderly settlement of estates and the dependability of title to property passing under intestate distribution laws.

Ultimately, the court concluded that precluding inheritance by the paternal kindred of an illegitimate child does not violate equal protection.