Matter of Walker, 64 N.Y.2d 354 (1985)

A testamentary bequest, even if clearly intended by the testator, will not be enforced if it violates the public policy of the state, particularly concerning the confidentiality of adoption records as expressed in statutes like Domestic Relations Law § 114.

Summary

This case concerns the enforceability of a bequest where the testator, former NYC Mayor James J. Walker, bequeathed his personal property to his adopted children, which they claimed included their adoption decrees. The children sought the decrees to discover the identities of their biological mothers. The New York Court of Appeals held that while the testator likely intended to bequeath the decrees, enforcing the bequest to reveal the identities of the biological parents would violate New York’s public policy of maintaining the confidentiality of adoption records, as reflected in Domestic Relations Law § 114. Thus, the bequest was unenforceable.

Facts

James J. Walker, former Mayor of New York City, adopted two children, Mary Ann and James J. Walker, II, in Illinois in 1936 and 1937. Walker obtained copies of the adoption decrees and entrusted them to his lawyer, Sidney Harris. Walker died in 1946, leaving a will that bequeathed all his personal property to his children. Upon reaching adulthood, the children sought the adoption decrees from the successor to Walker’s lawyer’s firm, hoping to discover the identities of their biological mothers.

Procedural History

The children filed a will construction proceeding in Surrogate’s Court to obtain the adoption decrees. The Surrogate denied the application, holding the decrees were not personalty transferrable by the will and that disclosing their contents would violate public policy. The Appellate Division affirmed the Surrogate’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the testator intended to bequeath the adoption decrees to his children in his will.

2. If the testator intended to bequeath the adoption decrees, whether enforcing the bequest to allow disclosure of the biological parents’ identities would violate New York’s public policy.

Holding

1. Yes, because the broad language of the will, specifically the bequest of “any and all my personal property” and the residuary clause, indicated an intent to transfer all tangible personalty, including the adoption decrees.

2. Yes, because enforcing the bequest to discover the identities of the biological parents would violate New York’s public policy of maintaining the confidentiality of adoption records, as expressed in Domestic Relations Law § 114.

Court’s Reasoning

The court first determined that the testator intended to bequeath the adoption decrees, interpreting “all my personal property” broadly to include all tangible personalty. However, the court emphasized that a testator’s intent must yield to public policy. The court stated, “when we speak of the public policy of the state, we mean the law of the state, whether found in the Constitution, the statutes or judicial records” (People v Hawkins, 157 NY 1, 12). While Domestic Relations Law § 114, which mandates the sealing of adoption records, did not apply directly (as the adoptions occurred in Illinois before the statute’s enactment), the policy underlying it was relevant. The court reasoned that New York’s public policy, evolved through statutes and amendments, favors the confidentiality of adoption records to protect the adopted child, adoptive parents, and biological parents. The court cited Matter of Linda F. M., (52 NY2d 236, 239), highlighting the policy’s aim to shield the child from disturbing facts, prevent interference from biological parents, and protect the natural parents’ privacy. Even though the information was once accessible, the court refused to use its machinery to violate existing public policy by granting the children access to the decrees for the purpose of discovering the biological parents’ identities. The court found that to allow the disclosure would contravene the social judgment implemented by Domestic Relations Law § 114.