Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappeal
statuteappeal

Related Cases

Schrader v. Schrader, 81 Ark. App. 343, 101 S.W.3d 873
View Case »
Estate of Tolman, 181 Cal.App.4th 1433, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 924, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1951, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2376
View Case »
In re Estate of Byrne, Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2014 WL 1233708
View Case »
Minton v. Sackett, 671 N.E.2d 160
View Case »
Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. Clyde, 143 Conn. 247, 121 A.2d 625
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Finley v. Astrue, 372 Ark. 103, 270 S.W.3d 849

Facts

Amy Finley and Wade W. Finley, Jr. were married and pursued fertility treatments, resulting in the creation of embryos through in vitro fertilization. After Wade's death in July 2001, Amy had two frozen embryos implanted in her uterus, leading to the birth of a child on March 4, 2003. Amy sought child insurance benefits based on Wade's earnings, but the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denied the claim, leading to an appeal in the District Court, which certified a question to the Arkansas Supreme Court regarding the child's inheritance rights.

According to the District Court's order, the certified question arises from an appeal by Amy Finley, from the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Michael Astrue (the Commissioner), which denied her claim for 'child's insurance benefits' under 42 U.S.C. § 402(d). On October 6, 1990, Ms. Finley and Wade W. Finley, Jr., were married. During the course of the marriage, the Finleys pursued fertility treatments at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), and, ultimately, participated in UAMS's In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer (IVF/ET) Program. In June of 2001, doctors produced ten embryos using Ms. Finley's eggs and Mr. Finley's sperm. Two of the embryos were implanted into Ms. Finley's uterus and four embryos were frozen for preservation. Ms. Finley later suffered a miscarriage of both of the implanted embryos. On July 19, 2001, Mr. Finley died intestate while domiciled here in Arkansas. A little less than one year later, on June 26, 2002, Ms. Finley had two of the previously frozen embryos thawed and transferred into her uterus, resulting in a single pregnancy.

Issue

Does a child, who was created as an embryo through in vitro fertilization during his parents' marriage, but implanted into his mother's womb after the death of his father, inherit from the father under Arkansas intestacy law as a surviving child?

Does a child, who was created as an embryo through in vitro fertilization during his parents' marriage, but implanted into his mother's womb after the death of his father, inherit from the father under Arkansas intestacy law as a surviving child?

Rule

In order to inherit as a posthumous descendant under Arkansas law, a child must have been conceived before the decedent's death.

In order to inherit as a posthumous descendant under Arkansas law, the child must not only have been born after the decedent's death, but must also have been conceived before the decedent's death.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory requirements for posthumous heirs under Arkansas law, specifically focusing on the definition of 'conceived.' It determined that the child was not conceived before the father's death, as the embryos were implanted after his death. The court emphasized that the legislature did not intend for the intestacy statutes to encompass children conceived through IVF after a parent's death, as the law was enacted prior to the development of such reproductive technologies.

It is clear from the statute that in order to inherit through intestate succession as a posthumous descendant, the child must have been conceived before the decedent's death. However, the statutory scheme fails to define the term 'conceived.' While we could define that term, we find there is no need to do so, as we can definitively say that the General Assembly, in enacting Act 303 of 1969, § 12, now codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 28–9–210, did not intend for the statute to permit a child, created through in vitro fertilization and implanted after the father's death, to inherit under intestate succession.

Conclusion

The court answered the certified question in the negative, concluding that the child was not entitled to inherit from his deceased father under Arkansas intestacy law.

For the foregoing reasons, we answer the certified question in the negative.

Who won?

The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the decision that the child did not have inheritance rights under Arkansas law due to the timing of conception relative to the father's death.

The Commissioner responds that Arkansas intestacy law does not provide inheritance rights from a biological father to a child who was created as an embryo through in vitro fertilization during his parents' marriage, but implanted into his mother's womb after the death of the father.

You must be