Estate of Britel v. Britel
236 Cal. App. 4th 127
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Decedent Amine Britel died intestate in 2011; Jackie S. petitioned for administration and sought a determination that her nonmarital daughter A.S. is Amine’s heir under Prob. Code § 6453(b)(2).
- § 6453(b)(2) permits establishing paternity for intestacy if paternity is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the father "openly held out the child as his own."
- Facts: Amine and Jackie had a brief relationship; Jackie informed Amine of her pregnancy in 2000; Amine responded privately that the pregnancy would bring shame and asked not to be contacted; Amine never met or supported A.S. and never told family about the child.
- A postmortem DNA test (admitted over objection) showed a 99.9996% probability Amine was A.S.’s father; Jackie never pursued a paternity decree while Amine was alive.
- Probate court found Jackie’s witnesses not credible and held she failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Amine "openly held out" A.S.; court granted administration to Amine’s sister and held Amine’s mother was sole heir.
- Appeal: Court of Appeal affirmed, construing "openly held out" to require an unconcealed affirmative representation of paternity made in open view and rejecting equal protection and DNA-based challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "openly held out" under § 6453(b)(2) | Jackie: private acknowledgment to someone suffices; Burden treats "openly held out" as synonymous with "acknowledge." | Respondents: requires public/unconcealed representation to put family/estate on notice. | Court: requires an unconcealed affirmative representation made in open view (public in context, not necessarily to the world). |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Amine openly held out A.S. | Jackie: Amine’s private statements during pregnancy and to a friend establish acknowledgment. | Respondents: Amine concealed pregnancy, never told family, provided no support or contact; only private communications. | Court: substantial evidence supports finding Jackie failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Amine openly held out A.S. as his child. |
| Effect of DNA proof of paternity on intestate inheritance | Jackie: DNA conclusively establishes biological issue and entitles A.S. to inherit. | Respondents: § 6453 is the exclusive means to establish parent-child relationship for intestacy; DNA alone is irrelevant to § 6453(b)(2). | Court: DNA evidence does not, by itself, satisfy § 6453(b)(2); statute provides exclusive methods for intestacy paternity. |
| Equal protection challenge to § 6453(b)(2) | Jackie: treating marital children more favorably and denying DNA-proven nonmarital children violates equal protection given modern genetics. | Respondents: statute is substantially related to important interests (probate finality, decedent intent, estate administration); Lalli and precedent support the classification. | Court: statute passes intermediate scrutiny for illegitimacy classifications; no state or federal equal protection violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Burden v. Burden, 146 Cal.App.4th 1021 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussed prior interpretation equating "openly held out" with "acknowledge")
- Estate of Joseph v. Joseph, 17 Cal.4th 203 (Cal. 1998) (framework for construing intestacy statutes and purposes)
- Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1978) (upheld intestacy restriction requiring paternity decree during father’s life; emphasized estate administration/finality)
- Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (U.S. 1988) (illegitimacy classifications and intermediate scrutiny principles)
- Cheyanna M. v. A.C. Nielsen Co., 66 Cal.App.4th 855 (Cal. Ct. App.) (interpreting § 6453(b)(3) and related issues about prenatal holding out)
- Estate of Baird, 193 Cal. 225 (Cal. 1924) (public acknowledgment guidance relevant to "openly held out")
- Estate of Sanders, 2 Cal.App.4th 462 (Cal. Ct. App.) (holding § 6453 exclusive for intestacy paternity determinations)