177 Conn.App. 163
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Settlor (John Dennis Eder) executed an irrevocable annuity trust in 1991 that paid him for 20 years and then directed distribution "to each child of the Grantor then living."
- Settlor had one biological son, David Eric Eder (born 1963), and beginning in 1975 lived with Jill Richter and her two sons (Sacha and Mischa) who were then children; he maintained a long-standing parental-type relationship with them.
- In 2010 the settlor legally adopted the two Richter brothers as adults (Massachusetts decree) and testified he adopted them to include them in the trust before termination.
- Trustees sought a probate determination of beneficiaries when the trust terminated in 2011; the Probate Court decreed the corpus be divided equally among David and the two adopted sons.
- David appealed to Superior Court arguing the adult adoptions were a sham/subterfuge to reduce his share and that adopted adults should not take under the trust; the Superior Court affirmed and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eder) | Defendant's Argument (Trustees/Settlor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlor's intent in adopting two adults is relevant to a sham/adoption-for-benefit claim | Adoption was solely to alter beneficiary class and reduce David's share; motive proves sham | Adoption valid under statute; motive alone does not negate legal adoption when familial bond exists | Court: Settlor's motive not dispositive; intent is determined by trust language and facts showed non-sham adoptions |
| Whether adult adoptees may be included as "children" under the trust | Adult adoptees should be excluded as subterfuge when adoption occurs to affect an existing testamentary instrument | Connecticut law treats adopted persons as children for wills/trusts unless instrument excludes them; adoptions valid | Court: Adopted adult children included because trust did not exclude adoptees and statutes require treating adoptees as children |
| Whether the adoptions contravene the trust's purpose (natural objects of bounty) | Adoption undermines settlor's original expectation of beneficiary class and thwarts trust purpose | Adopted Richter brothers were long-standing parental objects of settlor's bounty; adoptions recognized preexisting familial bond | Court: Adoptions consistent with trust purpose; adoptees were natural objects of settlor's bounty, so inclusion did not contravene the trust |
| Whether extrinsic evidence (motive, tax purpose) may override clear trust language | Extrinsic facts (settlor's tax motive or intent to disinherit) should control to prevent fraud | Trust language defines beneficiary class; statutes and full faith and credit control; extrinsic intent cannot rewrite clear terms | Court: Construed trust language controlling; no evidence adoptions altered or violated trust intent or public policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Minary v. Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co., 419 S.W.2d 340 (Ky. 1967) (adult adoption may be a subterfuge if done solely to create testamentary rights)
- Davis v. Neilson, 871 S.W.2d 35 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993) (articulates a commonsense test weighing familial bond in adult adoption cases)
- In re Trusts Created by Agreement with Harrington, 250 N.W.2d 163 (Minn. 1977) (recognizes adult adoptees with preexisting parental relationships may take)
- Cross v. Cross, 532 N.E.2d 486 (Ill. App. 1988) (adult adoption to alter testamentary disposition can be disallowed as subterfuge)
- Matter of Trust Created by Belgard, 829 P.2d 457 (Colo. App. 1991) (addresses adoption of adults to enlarge beneficiary class and related policy concerns)
- Estate of Pittman, 104 Cal. App. 3d 288 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (supports considering familial relationship and "loco parentis" in adult adoption cases)
- Otto v. Gore, 45 A.3d 120 (Del. 2012) (example of excluding adult adoptee when adoption served to enlarge beneficiary class in questionable circumstances)