Title: In Re Estate of Shehady
Citation: 491 P.2d 528, 83 N.M. 311
Docket Number: 9270
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: December 6, 1971

491 P.2d 528 (1971) 83 N.M. 311 In the Matter of the ESTATE of David S. SHEHADY, Deceased. Imogene SHEHADY, Appellant, v. Myrna Louise RICHARDS, now Myrna Louise Wolf, and David Richards, Appellees. No. 9270. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 6, 1971. McCormick, Paine, Feezer &amp; Forbes, Carlsbad, for appellant. Jerome D. Matkins, W.T. Martin, Jr., Carlsbad, for appellees. OMAN, Justice. This cause is before us on a stipulation of facts, which are consistent with the findings made by the trial court, and a stipulation as to the issue to be determined by us on this appeal. This issue is: The trial court ruled the adoption did not prohibit them from inheriting from decedent, and they are entitled to share in decedent's estate according to the New Mexico laws of descent and distribution. We reverse. Briefly the pertinent facts are: (1) Decedent was first married to Elizabeth on November 29, 1928. This marriage was terminated by divorce on February 18, 1933. (2) From this marriage Myrna was born on September 23, 1929, and David was born on April 8, 1931. (3) Subsequent to the divorce of Elizabeth from decedent, she married Richards. (4) On June 10, 1942, Myrna and David were adopted by Richards and given his name. Richards was joined in the adoption proceedings by his wife, Elizabeth, the natural mother of Myrna and David. (5) Decedent and Imogene were married on January 11, 1966, and no children were born of this marriage. (6) Decedent died intestate on July 16, 1970. He had no heirs by adoption. (7) Imogene, his surviving widow, claims to be decedent's sole heir at law and entitled to his entire estate. (8) Myrna and David claim to be heirs of decedent and entitled to an interest in decedent's estate under the New Mexico laws of descent and distribution. The resolution of the issue presented depends very largely upon the meaning and effect of §§ 22-2-10, 22-2-19 [Repealed in 1971] and 29-1-17, N.M.S.A. 1953. These sections of our statutes provide: It is the public policy in New Mexico, as demonstrated by the foregoing provisions of our statutes and as announced by this court in Delaney v. First National Bank in Albuquerque, 73 N.M. 192, 386 P.2d 711 (1963), "* * * to treat adopted children the same as natural children. * * *" This policy is consistent with the developing trend to treat an adopted child as the natural child of the adopting parents and the family of those parents, and to terminate in every respect, when considering legal rights and obligations, the relationship with the child's natural parents. In re Silberman's Will, 23 N.Y.2d 98, 295 N.Y.S.2d 478, 242 N.E.2d 736 (1968); In re Estate of Wiltermood, 78 Wash. 2d 238, 472 P.2d 536 (1970); In re Estate of Russell, 17 Cal. App. 3d 758, 95 Cal. Rptr. 88 (1971); People v. Estate of Murphy, 481 P.2d 420 (Colo. App. 1971); Weitzel v. Weitzel, 16 Ohio Misc. 105, 239 N.E.2d 263 (1968); In re Estate of Jalo, 474 P.2d 355 (Or. App. 1970); Epstein, Inheritance Rights of an Adopted Child in Texas, 6 Houston L. Rev. 350, 354 (1968); Halbach, The Rights of Adopted Children Under Class Gifts, 50 Iowa L.Rev. 971, 974 (1965). The Supreme Court of Wisconsin in In re Estate of Topel, 32 Wis.2d 223, 145 N.W.2d 162 (1966), was confronted with the identical issue here raised, except the decedent was the natural paternal grandfather of the adopted children rather than the natural father. The statute there involved provided: In neither the Wisconsin statutes nor in our statutes is there an express provision that an adopted child shall not succeed to or inherit from the estate of his natural parent or relative of the natural parent. There are differences in the language of the statutes, but in both there are express references to, or language to the effect that, an adoption effects changes in the legal status of the parties to the extent that the adopted child shall become the child of the adopting parent or parents the same as if born to him or them in lawful wedlock, and that for all inheritance purposes, without exception, the adopted child shall be considered as the child of the adopting parents. In holding an adoption under the Wisconsin statute destroyed or terminated the grandchildren's status as "lawful issue of any deceased child," the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated in part: In Wailes v. Curators of Central College, 363 Mo. 932, 254 S.W.2d 645, 37 A.L.R.2d 326 (1953), the principal question presented was whether a person legally adopted "* * * may inherit from the natural parents, or, as in this case, from the natural grandparents." The resolution of this question was dependent upon the construction of a section of the Missouri statutes dealing with the consequences of adoption. This section of the statute is quoted in the court's opinion but is not here quoted because of its length. However, again there was no express provision therein that an adoptive child should not succeed to or inherit from the estate of his natural parent or relative of the natural parent. There were provisions expressly providing that the status of the adopted child was the same as though born to the adopting parent and that all legal relationships and all rights and duties between the adopted child and his natural parents ceased and determined. Again the language of our statutes, as quoted above, is different, but the intent and effect thereof are the same. *531 In holding that adopted children may not inherit from their natural parents, or their natural grandfather, the Supreme Court of Missouri stated in part as follows: We agree with the reasoning of the Wisconsin and Missouri courts, which is in accord with the express and clearly implied meanings of our statutes and with the public policy of our state as declared in our statutes and by this court in Delaney v. First National Bank in Albuquerque, supra. The Decree of Determination of Heirship should be reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of a decree determining that Myrna and David are not heirs at law of decedent. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J. and McMANUS, J., concur.