Source: https://openjurist.org/658/f2d/641
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:42:35+00:00

Document:
Harry J. Nichols, Dennis W. Fox, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Robert D. Kingsland, U. S. Atty., Joseph B. Moore, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before HEANEY and HENLEY, Circuit Judges, and NICHOL,* Senior District Judge.
Katie M. Fulton, mother and natural guardian of Rosie Huggins, appeals the order of the district court, 498 F.Supp. 1076, granting summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who denied appellant's claim for child's insurance benefits for Rosie. We reverse the district court's decision and order the entry of summary judgment for appellant.
Rosie Huggins is the daughter of appellant and Eddie Huggins, the deceased wage earner. She was born during the three years that appellant and Rosie's father lived together, unmarried, in Mississippi. In 1962 appellant left Rosie with Huggins and his mother and moved to St. Louis with another daughter who was fathered by Huggins. One year later Rosie joined her mother and sister in St. Louis. Appellant testified during the administrative hearing that several months after she moved to St. Louis, Huggins sent her $25.00 on one occasion and $50.00 on another. It appears from the record that these payments were the only support paid by Huggins after appellant moved to St. Louis. There was no further contact between appellant and Huggins until his death in May, 1966.
Appellant filed the instant claim on behalf of her daughters1 on February 11, 1977.2 After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Huggins was Rosie's natural father,3 but "was not either living with or contributing to (her) support at the time of his death or over any reasonable period preceding death." Thus, the ALJ determined that Rosie was not entitled to child's benefits on the earnings record of Eddie Huggins since she was not dependent on him at the time of his death. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1)(C)(ii). The Appeals Council adopted the ALJ's decision denying Rosie benefits on October 12, 1978. Appellant now appeals from the judgment of the district court affirming the denial of benefits.
An illegitimate child ... may inherit real or personal property in the same manner as a legitimate child from such child's mother or her blood kindred; but such child may not inherit real or personal property from his father or from his father's blood kindred.
In Lucas v. Handcock, 583 S.W.2d 491 (Ark. en banc 1979), the Arkansas court declared this statute unconstitutional5 as a result of Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S.Ct. 1459, 52 L.Ed.2d 31 (1977), in which the Supreme Court held that a nearly identical Illinois intestacy provision violated the equal protection clause. In Lucas, the court applied Trimble retroactively to allow an illegitimate child to take an intestate share of his grandfather's estate. Although the deceased died before Trimble was decided, the court found that litigation to which the child was a party was pending at the time of the Trimble decision and therefore concluded that the child could take the share to which his father would have been entitled had he survived the deceased. The Arkansas court did not deviate from this position in Frakes v. Hunt, 583 S.W.2d 497 (Ark. en banc 1979), and Compton v. White, 587 S.W.2d 829 (Ark.1979), in which it refused to give retroactive effect to Trimble because the fathers of the illegitimate children died before the date of the Trimble decision and no litigation to which the children were a party was pending at that time.
In the instant case, the district court also declined to apply Trimble retroactively after finding that Eddie Huggins died almost eleven years before Trimble was decided and that no litigation was pending at the time of that decision. Thus, the court concluded that because Rosie could not inherit personal property from her father under Arkansas law, she was not legitimate and in turn was not deemed dependent on Huggins at the time of his death. On appeal, the issue before us is whether the district court erred in deciding that Trimble should be given prospective effect only. We conclude that the district court did err in refusing to apply the Trimble decision to the circumstances of this case.
Appellant in the instant case applied for child benefits on Rosie's behalf on February 11, 1977, two and one-half months before Trimble was decided.6 The final decision of the Secretary was not rendered until October 12, 1978. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.981 (1981). Because it is clear from these circumstances that appellant's claim for child benefits was pending at the time Trimble was decided, we must apply the rule enunciated in Trimble to the instant case. See Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 625-27, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1735-36, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965); United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103, 110, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801); Flanigan v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 632 F.2d 880, 887-89 (8th Cir. 1980); Lucas v. Handcock, supra, 583 S.W.2d at 491.
In reaching this conclusion, we note that appellee's reliance on Frakes v. Hunt, supra, 583 S.W.2d at 497, is misplaced. In Frakes, the illegitimate daughter of the decedent contended that in light of Trimble she was the sole heir to four hundred acres of land owned by her father. The decision declining to apply Trimble retroactively was expressly grounded on the strong preference for order and finality in the administration of estates, stability of title to property, and the decedent's purported reliance on the existing law disallowing inheritance by an illegitimate child from his father. Frakes v. Hunt, supra, 583 S.W.2d at 499. In the instant case, appellant has not made a claim against Huggins' estate; she is seeking benefits that are not subject to probate. Therefore, we are not here concerned with the litigation of claims against an estate, questions of title to property, or decedent's reliance on the Arkansas statute in disposing of his property. It is also clear that no rights of third parties are at stake. Thus, our decision is not inconsistent with and does not undermine legitimate state interests in the orderly disposition of decedents' estates and the certainty of title to property.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and order the district court to enter summary judgment for appellant.

References: § 402
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 404
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.