In re Estate of Seaman, 78 N.Y.2d 451 (1991)

When an adopted-out child retains the right to inherit from their natural family under Domestic Relations Law § 117(1)(e), that right extends to the child’s issue, allowing them to inherit as well.

Summary

This case addresses whether the grandchild of a decedent, whose parent was adopted out of the family, can inherit from the decedent’s estate. The New York Court of Appeals held that under Domestic Relations Law § 117(1)(e), if an adopted-out child retains the right to inherit from their natural family, that right extends to the child’s issue. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind restoring inheritance rights to adopted-out children in specific circumstances also implicitly restored those rights to their issue. This decision clarifies the inheritance rights of descendants of adopted individuals within the context of New York’s intestacy laws.

Facts

Lloyd I. Seaman had two children: Dudley (from his first marriage) and Roberta (from his second). Dudley was the father of Charlotte (the petitioner). Dudley was adopted by his mother’s second husband. Roberta died intestate (without a will). If Dudley had not been adopted, Charlotte would have been Roberta’s sole heir as her half-niece. The objectants were Roberta’s first cousins, who would inherit if Charlotte could not.

Procedural History

The Surrogate’s Court determined that Charlotte was not a distributee (heir) of Roberta because Dudley had been adopted. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision based on the Surrogate’s opinion. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the right of an adopted-out child to inherit from their natural family, as provided by Domestic Relations Law § 117(1)(e), extends to the child’s issue (descendants), allowing them to inherit as well.

Holding

Yes, because when the Legislature restored the right of the adopted-out child to inherit from the natural family under the circumstances specified in Domestic Relations Law § 117 (1) (e), it also restored the right of the adopted-out child’s issue to do so.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the right of the issue to inherit is contingent on the parent’s ability to inherit from the natural family. Prior to 1963, the issue of a predeceased adopted child retained the right to inherit from the natural family. When the Legislature severed the adopted child’s right to inherit from biological kindred in 1963, it also severed the issue’s right. When Domestic Relations Law § 117 (1)(e) restored the right of the adopted-out child to inherit, it implicitly restored the right of the issue to do so as well. The court also addressed the policy considerations raised in Matter of Best, distinguishing Seaman because it involved an intra-family adoption, where family ties are more likely to be maintained. The Court stated: “The adoption statute and the descent and distribution statute are in pari materia, and should be read and construed together whenever possible.” Further, the court quoted the Law Revision Commission, stating it believed “there should be no distinction between the right of inheritance under the laws of intestacy and that under the law of wills and other instruments where the adopted-out person remains within the natural family unit”. The Court concluded that the Legislature intended no limitation on the right of the issue of the adopted-out child to inherit from the natural family when it enacted the amendments to the Domestic Relations Law.