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

statuteappealtrustwilladoptiondeclaratory judgment
statuteappealtrustwilladoptiondeclaratory judgment

Related Cases

In re Estate of McCreath, 240 P.3d 413
View Case »
In re Estate of Reistino, 333 S.W.3d 767
View Case »
Jaffe v. Pournaras, 178 A.3d 978
View Case »
McQuone v. Brown, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d, 2001 WL 1447232
View Case »
Estate of Heggstad, 16 Cal.App.4th 943, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 433
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Solomon v. Central Trust Co. of Northeastern Ohio, N.A., 63 Ohio St.3d 35, 584 N.E.2d 1185, 36 A.L.R.5th 873

Facts

Samuel J. Dreyer executed a will creating two testamentary trusts, with provisions for distribution to the 'then living children' of his brother, William Solomon, upon the death of the life beneficiary. William Solomon had one natural child, Ruth Esther Solomon, and one adopted child, Rochelle Solomon Lieberman. Although Rochelle was not formally adopted until 1985, she had lived with William Solomon as his child for most of her life. After William Solomon's death, Ruth filed for a declaratory judgment claiming she was the only child entitled to inherit from the trust, while Rochelle claimed her adoption entitled her to the same rights.

Samuel J. Dreyer executed a will creating two testamentary trusts, with provisions for distribution to the 'then living children' of his brother, William Solomon, upon the death of the life beneficiary. William Solomon had one natural child, Ruth Esther Solomon, and one adopted child, Rochelle Solomon Lieberman. Although Rochelle was not formally adopted until 1985, she had lived with William Solomon as his child for most of her life. After William Solomon's death, Ruth filed for a declaratory judgment claiming she was the only child entitled to inherit from the trust, while Rochelle claimed her adoption entitled her to the same rights.

Issue

Whether an adult adoptee can be considered a 'child' for inheritance purposes under a testamentary trust when the trust was created before adult adoptions were legally recognized.

Whether an adult adoptee can be considered a 'child' for inheritance purposes under a testamentary trust when the trust was created before adult adoptions were legally recognized.

Rule

A testator is presumed to know that the legislative definition of 'children' will be determined at the time the class closes, which may include adult adoptees, and absent specific language in the trust prohibiting adopted children from taking, they may inherit as members of the class of 'then living children.'

A testator is presumed to know that the legislative definition of 'children' will be determined at the time the class closes, which may include adult adoptees, and absent specific language in the trust prohibiting adopted children from taking, they may inherit as members of the class of 'then living children.'

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the intent of the testator and the relevant statutes regarding adoption. It concluded that the testator must have been aware that laws could change and that adult adoptees who had established a relationship with the adoptor during their minority should be treated as children for inheritance purposes. The absence of specific language excluding adopted children from the trust indicated that the testator intended to include them.

The court applied the rule by examining the intent of the testator and the relevant statutes regarding adoption. It concluded that the testator must have been aware that laws could change and that adult adoptees who had established a relationship with the adoptor during their minority should be treated as children for inheritance purposes. The absence of specific language excluding adopted children from the trust indicated that the testator intended to include them.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, allowing the adopted child to inherit under the terms of the trust as a member of the class of 'then living children.'

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, allowing the adopted child to inherit under the terms of the trust as a member of the class of 'then living children.'

Who won?

Rochelle Solomon Lieberman prevailed in the case because the court found that the testator's intent included adult adoptees as beneficiaries under the trust, and there was no specific exclusion in the trust language.

Rochelle Solomon Lieberman prevailed in the case because the court found that the testator's intent included adult adoptees as beneficiaries under the trust, and there was no specific exclusion in the trust language.

You must be