Halterman v. Fellencer

California Court of Appeal Dec 31, 1923 No. Civ. No. 2648.Published

Before: Finch

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a valid adoption in another state severs the legal relationship between a child and their natural parent, such that the child does not inherit from the natural parent as a pretermitted heir, nor do the child's own issue inherit from the natural parent.

Issues

Whether the adoption of the appellant by a third party in Pennsylvania was valid under the laws of that state.
Whether the legal relationship between a child and their natural parent is revived upon the death of the adoptive parent.
Whether the children of an adopted child are entitled to inherit from the natural parent of the adopted child as pretermitted heirs under California law.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is nothing in the statute which limits the effect of the adoption to the period of the lives of the adopting parent and the adopted child.”

“To sustain the appellants’ contention we should have to hold that, although the relation of parent and child existing between him and the decedent was supplanted by the new relation created by the adoption, it was again revived by the death of the foster parent.”

FINCH, P. J.

In the year 1884 Ervin L„ Hunsicker and Emma J. Hunsicker, his wife, and their only child, Stella May Hunsicker, then of the age of about three years, were residents of Monroe County, Pennsylvania, as was also Andrew S. Hinton. In that year, by a proceeding in the court of common pleas in that county, and with the consent of the parents of the child, Hinton duly adopted said Stella May Hunsicker as his child and heir, the decree of the court providing “that the said child shall assume the name of Stella May Hinton, and have all the rights of a child and heir of the said Andrew S. Hinton, and be subject to the duties of a child.” It appears from the record, at least inferentially, that Hinton was married and living with his wife at the time of the adoption proceedings. It does not appear whether she consented to the adoption by her husband of the child. The child lived with the Hintons as their adopted child until her marriage in the year 1902 to Ralph A. Halterman. Mary E. Halterman and Ralph A. Halterman, hereinafter mentioned, are the only issue of such marriage. The Hintons had no child of their own blood and, from certain evidence admitted in the instant

[116]

case, it is to be inferred that upon their deaths Mrs. Halter-man succeeded to the estates of her adopted parents.

Hunsicker and his wife were divorced, whether before or after the adoption proceedings does not appear. He came to California, where he died November 25, 1918, leaving an estate consisting of personal property of the appraised value of $5,535.52, situate in this state. By his last will, executed in this state, he gave all of his property to strangers in blood, except one dollar each to his brothers and sisters. The will does not mention Mrs. Halterman or her children nor does it contain any language to indicate that the omission to mention them was intentional.

In due course of administration a petition for distribution of the estate was filed by the beneficiaries under the will, whereupon Mrs. Halterman appeared in opposition to the petition and prayed that the whole estate be distributed to her as a pretermitted child, and the only surviving child, of decedent. A separate opposition was filed by the guardian

ad litem

Halterman v. Fellencer

AI Brief

FINCH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief