Opinion ID: 1941403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Distribution of the Art Hadley Living Trust

Text: With respect to the Art Hadley Living Trust, appellants urge this Court to recognize that Art Hadley intended to benefit only his blood relatives and not his adoptive grandchildren. Janet Hunt and Lucille Foster, however, contend that the trial justice properly recognized their interest in the trust in accordance with Rhode Island intestacy laws. We begin our analysis by looking to the plain language of the trust itself, in an effort to effectuate the settlor's intent. Indeed, we have held that [t]his court's `primary objective when construing language in a will or trust is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the testator or settlor as long as that intent is not contrary to law.' In re DiBiasio, 705 A.2d 972, 973 (R.I.1998) (quoting Prince v. Roberts, 436 A.2d 1078, 1080 (R.I.1981)). The Art Hadley Living Trust provides for the final distribution of the trust estate to the living issue of Art Hadley's two children, Thomas Hadley and Sarah Hadley. Unfortunately, the trust itself is silent about the definition of issue. In the context of wills and estates, Black's Law Dictionary defines issue as lineal descendants; offspring. Black's Law Dictionary 850 (8th ed. 2004). Further complicating the distribution of the Art Hadley Living Trust, neither Thomas Hadley nor Sarah Hadley had any biological children. The only individuals who potentially could qualify as issue are Thomas Hadley's adopted daughters, Janet Hunt and Lucille Foster, leaving this Court to resolve whether they are lawfully Thomas Hadley's issue, as referred to in the Art Hadley Living Trust. General Laws 1956 § 15-7-16 governs the extent to which adoptive kindred may inherit from an adoptive parent. Subsection (a) of § 15-7-16 provides in relevant part: A child lawfully adopted shall be deemed, for the purpose of inheritance by the child and his or her descendants from the parents by adoption and the lineal and collateral kindred of the parents by adoption, and for the purpose of inheritance by the parents by adoption, and the lineal and collateral kindred of the parents by adoption, from the child and his or her descendants, and for all other legal consequences and incidents of the natural relation of parents and children, except as provided in § 15-7-17, the child of the parents by adoption the same as if he or she had been born to them in lawful wedlock. In Tinney, this Court interpreted this statutory language and concluded that the General Assembly intended the term child to mean son or daughter of a parent, regardless of age, and that there was no distinction intended between the inheritance rights of a `child' adopted as a minor and `persons' adopted as adults. Tinney, 799 A.2d at 237-38. Based on this conclusion, we held that an adoptee, who was thirty-eight years old at the time of his adoption, could inherit from his adoptive mother under Rhode Island's intestacy laws. Id. at 235, 237-38. Although appellants recognize our holding in Tinney, they contend that the exclusion contained in § 15-7-16(a) applies to this case and should operate to exclude Janet Hunt and Lucille Foster from inheriting under Art Hadley's testamentary trust. The statutory exclusion provides, in relevant part: In the construction of any instrument, whether executed before or after May 8, 1956, a child so adopted and the descendants of the child shall be deemed within a limitation to the lawful heirs, issue, children, descendants, or the like, as the case may be, of the parent or parents by adoption, unless a contrary intention shall appear by the terms of the instrument or unless the particular estate so limited has vested in and as to the person or persons entitled to it on April 20, 1962; provided, that this sentence shall not apply in the construction of any instrument as to any child who is over the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of his or her adoption and who is adopted after the death of the maker of the instrument.  Section 15-7-16(a). (Emphasis added.) This Court's primary focus when construing a statute is to determine the General Assembly's underlying intent and to give it effect. Tinney, 799 A.2d at 236-37 (citing R & R Associates v. City of Providence Water Supply Board, 765 A.2d 432, 436 (R.I.2001)). [W]hen the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings. Id. at 237 (quoting Mottola v. Cirello, 789 A.2d 421, 423 (R.I.2002)). Examining the plain language of the statute as a whole, we reach three conclusions with respect to the rights of adoptees to inherit from the lineal ancestors of his or her adoptive parents. First, under Rhode Island law, all children eighteen years of age or younger at the time of their adoption may inherit from the lineal ancestors of their adoptive parents. See Tinney, 799 A.2d at 237. Second, under Rhode Island intestacy law, individuals who are over the age of eighteen at the time of their adoption may inherit from the lineal ancestors of their adoptive parents. See id. Third, when construing a writing, the definition of lawful heirs, issue, children, [or] descendants does not include those persons who were over the age of eighteen at the time of their adoption. Section 15-7-16(a). Our interpretation of § 15-7-16(a) precludes Janet Hunt and Lucille Foster from being considered Thomas Hadley's issue, as that term is used in the Art Hadley Living Trust, because they were over the age of eighteen at the time of their adoption. Therefore, the distribution of assets contemplated in the Art Hadley Living Trust failed in its entirety. This conclusion, however, does not end our analysis. Perhaps foreseeing that the provisions for the trust's distribution could fail, the Art Hadley Living Trust also included a failure clause, which specified that in the case of the trust's failure, Rhode Island's intestacy laws should be applied to distribute the remaining trust assets. Accordingly, we must determine the beneficiaries of the Art Hadley Living Trust under Rhode Island intestacy law in effect at the time of the trust's failure  Sarah's death in 2002. General Laws 1956 § 33-1-10, in place in 2002, governs the distribution of personal property. That statute provides: Surplus personalty not bequeathed.  The surplus of any chattels or personal estate of a deceased person, not bequeathed, after the payment of his or her just debts, funeral charges, and expenses of settling his or her estate, shall be distributed by order of the probate court which shall grant administration in the manner following: (1) The sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) from the surplus and one-half (1/2) of the remainder to the widow or surviving husband forever, if the intestate died without issue. (2) One-half (1/2) of the surplus to the widow or surviving husband, forever, if the intestate died leaving issue. (3) The residue shall be distributed among the heirs of the intestate in the same manner real estates descend and pass by this chapter, but without having any respect to the life estate and discretionary allowance provided by §§ 33-1-5 and 33-1-6. Furthermore, § 33-1-1 governs the distribution of real estate. That statute provides: Real estate descending by intestacy to children or descendants, parents, or brothers and sisters.  Whenever any person having title to any real estate of inheritance shall die intestate as to such estate, it shall descend and pass in equal portions to his or her kindred, in the following course: (1) First to his children or their descendants, if there are any. (2) Second if there be no children nor their descendants, then to the parents in equal shares, or to the surviving parent of such intestate. (3) Third if there is no parent, then to the brothers and sisters of the intestate, and their descendants. These statutes, read together, make it clear that the surplus of the Art Hadley Living Trust should be distributed to Art Hadley's kindred. At the time of Sarah Hadley's death, Art Hadley's wife, Frances Hadley, and son, Thomas Hadley, were deceased. The only remaining question is whether Janet Hunt and Lucille Foster qualify as Art Hadley's kindred. Because we already have determined that, pursuant to Rhode Island intestacy law an adopted adult qualifies as an heir, issue, child, or descendant of his or her adoptive parent, we conclude that Janet Hunt and Lucille Foster are the proper beneficiaries of the Art Hadley Living Trust.