Matter of Best, 66 N.Y.2d 151 (1985)
A child born out of wedlock and adopted out of their biological family does not have the right to inherit from a trust established by their biological grandmother, unless explicitly named in the will.
Summary
This case addresses whether a child, born out of wedlock and adopted out of his biological family at birth, is entitled to a share of a trust established by his biological grandmother. The New York Court of Appeals held that the child is not entitled to such a share. The court reasoned that allowing inheritance in such cases would undermine the legislative intent to sever the adopted child’s ties with the biological family, breach the confidentiality of adoption records, and destabilize property titles. This decision emphasizes the importance of balancing the rights of children born out of wedlock with the policies supporting adoption and the orderly administration of estates.
Facts
Jessie C. Best died in 1973, leaving a will that created a residuary trust for her daughter, Ardith Reid, as the income beneficiary. Upon Ardith’s death, the trust was to be divided among Ardith’s issue. Initially, the trustees believed Ardith had only one son, Anthony. However, in 1976, they learned that Ardith had given birth to a child out of wedlock in 1952, who was immediately placed for adoption. This child was later identified as David Lawson McCollum. After Ardith’s death, the trustees initiated a proceeding to determine whether McCollum should be included as a beneficiary under the trust.
Procedural History
The Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County, ruled that McCollum should be included as an issue of Ardith Reid and thus a beneficiary under the trust. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this decision, adopting the Surrogate’s reasoning. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a child born out of wedlock and adopted out of their biological family at birth is entitled to inherit from a class gift in a will of their biological grandmother, absent specific mention in the will.
Holding
No, because powerful policy considerations militate against construing a class gift to include a child adopted out of the family; the Legislature clearly intended that the adopted child be severed from the biological family tree and be engrafted upon new parentage.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts, holding that McCollum was not entitled to a share of the trust. The court acknowledged that the term “issue” is ambiguous and its meaning depends on the testator’s intent. While contemporary social mores suggest that “issue” includes children born both in and out of wedlock, this presumption does not extend to children adopted out of the family. The court emphasized strong policy considerations against allowing adopted-out children to inherit from their biological families: 1) It undermines the legislative intent to sever ties between the adopted child and the biological family, promoting complete assimilation into the adoptive family. 2) It breaches the confidentiality of adoption records, as ascertaining inheritance rights might be considered “good cause” for access to sealed records. 3) It destabilizes real property titles and other property rights, as the possibility of a secret, adopted-out child could always exist. Domestic Relations Law § 117 terminates rights of intestate succession but does not guarantee a right to a class gift. The court noted that legislative activity regarding this issue did not alter the court’s analysis, and statutory enactments are generally not retroactive. The court stated, “Recognition of a right to inherit class gifts from biological kindred would be inconsistent with the child’s complete assimilation into the adoptive family and thus contrary to legislative intent”. Furthermore, the court stated that absent specific mention in the will, there’s no basis to presume the testatrix intended to include a child adopted out of the family within a generic class entitled to inherit.